Is 2.8 necessary with flash

[vojm]

First time I bought a DSLR I was under the impression that having an expensive 2.8 lense is the magical answer that will allow me to take fantastic indoor pictures without needing a flash. That sounded great because I didn't like the look of pictures with flash. I quickly found out that although it does help having a bigger aperture, it can't make light where light doesn't exist.

My question is, why pay extra for 2.8?

For example, canon has the 70-200mm lens lineup, one with F/4 and the other with F/2.8. If both cameras have a flash and were both used indoors inside a recital hall, would the 2.8 have a huge advantage over the F/4?

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but as a beginner I wonder about whether the price differences are justified.

[RichardTaylor]

Depends on what distance you are shooting from. With wider apertures your flash has more "reach"

See this explanation of guide numbers.

Guide number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also with wider apertures your camera may be able to focus better as the autofocus sensors are getting more light.
In addition you may be able to see and frame your subject a lot better with a faster lens.

I do shoot concerts (choirs etc) with out using a flash, however I prefer to use F2 lenses.

[arlon]

MY best low light setup has been a relatively cheap 50mm f1.4 (plastic af variety). I'm using Nikon stuff but the 1.4 does do amazing things wide open in relatively low light. I also have a Nikon D700 that does as good as anything at higher ISO levels. For indoor "snap shots" the cheap little 50mm 1.4 is the bomb. I've only had it 6mo or so but it's turning into a big favorite of mine. Cost was less than $250, I'm sure Canon has a competitive lens.

Shot the cat earlier this evening with it under "low light" no flash conditions..

I shot this at f1.8 ISO 1600 in aperture mode and it still went to 1/2000s shutter speed (one overhead light in the room). I could have cranked the ISO way down but didn't.PIC HERE

[jdepould]

I don't know what you're talking about, my 2.8 glass magically makes all of my pictures amazing.

In all seriousness, it isn't just the aperture. It's the build quality, resistance to CAs/flare/vignetting, contrast and color rendering. The list goes on.

[sbakewell1101]

2.8 is not only for light but of course for nice and dreamy bokeh... i made the mistake of not getting the 2.8 on some lenses and now i am am saving my pretty pennies for those fast lenses, and in some situations are you going to want to even use flash? I took some pictures at my friends babies baptism and other people were flashing away, but i opened up my aperature and lifted my iso and i got some really great pictures, that yeah had i used my flash i would of gotten, but this was a much less here i am with my camera approach.. and i love flash i love what images you can create, but sometimes there is nothing like a beautiful 2.8 or 1.4 or whatever portrait.

[Chip]

Fast lenses give you more options. If you're shooting that recital and flash isn't allowed, then you're going to want a fast lens to stop the action (and ideally a camera body that will not create too much noise at high ISO).

And flash is just as much about the direction of light as the amount of light. Even if you can get a properly exposed photo in low light with a fast lens and high ISO, if the lighting is flat and uninteresting, your photo will look the same. Learning how to bounce a flash off a wall, for example, or getting the flash off camera, can add interest and depth to a photo. Flash can also fill in harsh shadows or balance uneven lighting on your subject's face - something which fast lens/high ISO can't change.

Fast lenses and flashes are tools. Figuring out which tools to use in any given situation is all a part of the learning process.

My 2 cents.

[vojm]

And I was hoping the responses would be like "oh yeah save some money, buy F/4 lenses and use a flash, it won't make that much difference.."

Thanks for the explanations. Looks like I'm gonna need to save some more.

[SwissJon]

My 2.8 70-200 makes me stronger too! I mean it weighs so much, you get great pictures and avoid having to go to the gym... Wow, hidden benefits..

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by vojm

And I was hoping the responses would be like "oh yeah save some money, buy F/4 lenses and use a flash, it won't make that much difference.."

Thanks for the explanations. Looks like I'm gonna need to save some more.

Many of Canon's f/4 lenses are still L lenses, which means you'll get many of the benefits that come with the better glass, though obviously the super shallow depth of field isn't one of them.

[Chip]

Originally Posted by vojm

And I was hoping the responses would be like "oh yeah save some money, buy F/4 lenses and use a flash, it won't make that much difference.."

Thanks for the explanations. Looks like I'm gonna need to save some more.

Hah! Photography is fun and rewarding . . . but not necessarily cheap.

One good pointer is to wait to buy new toys until you know the areas/situations in which your current kit falls short. That way, you'll have a better chance of buying what you need. Photography is expensive enough without spending money on gear that doesn't really fill a void in your kit.