35mm f1.8 lens or sb400 flashgun?

[DannyF1966]

Hi guys,

I'm hopefully going to have a little bit of money burning a hole in my pocket soon, and I'm trying to work out what to buy next. I have a Nikon D40, kit lens, and the 55-200 zoom. I also have a basic tripod and that's about it.

So I'm looking to expand a little, and I don't know whether to go for the prime lens or the flashgun. I'm tempted to say the flash, as I really don't like the harsh effects I get from the in-camera flash, but then again a prime lens may well get me thinking about composition and content, and look at photography afresh.

What does the forum think? If you had to pick one or the other, what would you go for?

Dan

[lputman]

I would pick the flash. You can think composition with your kit lens. Put it on one focal length and shoot without zooming.

[autofocus]

I guess it really depends on what you mostly want to do with your equipment. At those dimly lit and dark photo opportunities there is no substitute for having accessory lighting...especially when a fast lens is just not enough. On the other hand, if most of your shooting is in available light, there is no substitute for great soft backgrounds shot with a fast lens. I think you'll have to decide what's right and best for you and your needs. Also, you can figure the day will come that you'll own both anyway

[OsmosisStudios]

If you're going to go for a flash, skip the SB-400 and try to find an SB-600. Considerably more powerful (the 400 is only marginally more powerful than the built-in) and allows for tilt and turn. THese are how you're going to be able to bounce your light to get away from the harsh direct flash look.

[Shokinen]

+1 on the SB600 vs.the 400

Actually, the first accessory I bought was my SB600. I was going to my brother's wedding, and felt I needed artificial light more than anything else (I wasn't the main photographer, and the wedding was on a cruise during the evening).

If I had to get rid of one or the other, I guess it would be the lens. The flash open a lot more opportunities in my opinion. Shallow depth of field gives a lot of emotion to a picture, but to me a good flash is necessary.

[vandergus]

I third the SB600 over the SB400. The SB400 is just a more powerful pop-up flash. It won't really open up any new photographic opportunities for you.

The 35mm f1.8 is also a great choice. I have the lens and the flash and use them both all the time. Even together! The thing is, low light is often bad light. Sometimes you get that soft side light from a nearby window but other times you get ugly down lighting from an overhead fixture. So even though f1.8 may get you the shutter speed you need to freeze the subject, the subject could still look crappy. Add a flash and you can capture some of the ambient light for a natural look and use the flash to create a more flattering fill light.

[ZinhaEq]

I completely agree with others. Forget about SB-400 and think about SB-600 vs. 35mm f/1.8G. Still, I would go for a flash, if you have a lot of problems with harsh shadows with the majority of your pictures.

[DannyF1966]

Thanks to everyone for their suggestions, I'm definitely going to check out the specs/prices of the SB600 now.

Cheers!

Dan

[zona5101]

yeah, dogpile.
If you can only get one right now skip the sb400 and get the lens. Then save up for the sb600, 700 or 900.

[Biomech]

I vote flash too!