SB-600 or 35mm 1.8?

[amymnc]

If you had to choose, which one would you get?
Two factors- I have the d40 so off camera flash is gonna take a little extra work, and AF-S lenses are a must until I get a new camera.

I seriously cannot decide, so you get to pick for me

[candleman]

uuuh.. which lenses do you already have, and what do you like to shoot most, and where..

initially.. off the cuff , without knowing what you have.
either a 50mm f/1.4 AF-S or a 35mm f/1.8

[amymnc]

I have the 18-55 kit lens and the 55-200 VR
Mostly portrait type shots of kids and soccer. I also dabble in sunsets

I really want that 50mm but $500 is above budget with Christmas around the corner. Must put more toys and unnecessary junk under the tree before mom gets camera gear. That's how it goes LOL But when Valentine's Day comes it'll be my turn

[candleman]

35mm would probably be too wide for sports.. just a thought

[Almond.Butterscotch]

SB-600 adds light.
35 f/1.8 makes the most with available light.

Let me put it this way: I received as a birthday present a couple months ago the SB-600. It's nice, but I don't use it much. I just bought myself the 35 f/1.8 and it has yet to leave the camera. Yes, it'll probably be too wide for sports, but in all honesty, I find myself using the SB-600 more when I want my camera to just *look* a little more badass to my non-photography friends. The 35mm, however, is an absolute gem- its cliched to say, but a prime does make you a better photographer- forcing you to compose more carefully, move around, etc. It's several times faster than the kit 18-55; so much so that I've actually started walking around with an ND-4 filter (I could just as easily use slower shutter speeds, but I like to have something protecting the glass).

All told, I find the 35 less cumbersome, more useful, and more valuable per dollar than the SB-600.

and its 20 bucks cheaper, too.

[inkista]

As a beginner, a fast prime is going to be easier to learn to use, probably more fun, and a lot less frustrating than a speedlight. But once you've gotten ambient exposure down, and you've gone as far as fast primes can let you go, and you're looking for a way to move to the next level, you will eventually run across the Strobist, and then you'll be happy you got an SB-600. But you'll probably be regretting you didn't save up for an SB-800 and/or D80/D90 instead. [grin].

Right now, I'd say go for the 35/1.8. It'll teach you the importance of max. aperture, DoF, and mastering your autofocus. But then, I'm enamored of fast primes.

[Shokinen]

Don't want to confuse you more but I bought my SB600 before my 35mm and I would do it again. Yes the 35mm is awsome, very nice bokeh, force you to compose.. but bounces are so fun to do. The also add a warm atmosphere to your pictures.

Take this shot for example. Would not have been possible with the built-in flash cause the light would have been straight. I actually bounced the light on the wall behind me.



Having that said... get both ! hahaha
One before Chrismas and the other at St-Valentine day

[amymnc]

Thanks for your suggestions! I'm leaning towards the lens...simply because I'd rather have the sb-900 than the 600. I can ask for that at Valentines. Oh but I wanna bounce light too....LOL

Is 35mm gonna be a problem with portraits? I don't wanna go making people's heads look huge or having weird distortion like that. Curious as to what your experience is.

[vandergus]

Originally Posted by amymnc

Thanks for your suggestions! I'm leaning towards the lens...simply because I'd rather have the sb-900 than the 600. I can ask for that at Valentines. Oh but I wanna bounce light too....LOL

Is 35mm gonna be a problem with portraits? I don't wanna go making people's heads look huge or having weird distortion like that. Curious as to what your experience is.

You can try setting your kit lens to 35mm to see what the perspectives will look like for portraits. I find that it's fine unless I'm really close. Here's a pretty tight shot with the 35mm and I think you are starting to see a little distortion in her face. Not terrible, though.



And I would go with the 35mm first for the reasons that Inkista mentioned. It'll be much easier to get up and running with. You'll get to strobes eventually .

[radityopradipto]

Originally Posted by amymnc

Thanks for your suggestions! I'm leaning towards the lens...simply because I'd rather have the sb-900 than the 600. I can ask for that at Valentines. Oh but I wanna bounce light too....LOL

Is 35mm gonna be a problem with portraits? I don't wanna go making people's heads look huge or having weird distortion like that. Curious as to what your experience is.

I have SB-900 for my D90... It is a nice flashgun, with enormous customisable setting... However, sometimes I though it's a bit of waste because SB-600 (or SB-800 if you can find it) can still do the same job if it's just bouncing and playing with gels... At least I never regret myself my SB-900 because I got it for around 600 AUD (lucky ) It's now around 800-900 on the market now...

Anyway, if you're looking for portrait, consider 50 1.4 (or 1.8 if you're on a budget) and 85 1.8/1.4... They're nice portrait lenses, and personally I prefer natural light rather than shooting with flashgun though... Don't really worry about the Manual focus thing... My 50 1.4 is manual focus (really old lens from my Dad) and I still very satisfied with the result... Once you get the hang of it, it's not gonna be that hard...