Flash or Lens?
Discussion
Do you actually need 200mm? What kind of pictures are you taking?
I prefer large aperture lenses, it means you often don't need flash. Pictures taken with flash always look washed-out and two dimensional.
I don't know Nikon lenses (I'm a Canon user) but try a Nikon f2.8 lens or maybe the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 in a shop, turn the ISO up to 400 and you'll see why you don't need flash in a lot of cases.
I prefer large aperture lenses, it means you often don't need flash. Pictures taken with flash always look washed-out and two dimensional.
I don't know Nikon lenses (I'm a Canon user) but try a Nikon f2.8 lens or maybe the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 in a shop, turn the ISO up to 400 and you'll see why you don't need flash in a lot of cases.
That's a good point, I'm not keen on flash photography (with the built in flash anyway) as the results are always overexposed and washed out and I'm never keen on the results, hence why I'm considering the lens option.
The external flash, however, would at least be able to be "bounced" or moved about a bit.
The external flash, however, would at least be able to be "bounced" or moved about a bit.
Something else I thought of, what lens are you thinking of using the flash on?
It's pointless on anything above 50mm in my experience of the onboard one, you're obviously not going to use it on a big zoom and at the low end @ 10'ish mm I found a black blur where the flash didnt light up the low part of the frame. So a seperate flash would be needed there.
My take would be if you're taking pictures in say the 18-55 range then it could be useful, but anything below or above that might need something "a bit fancy" and it may be better to look at a quicker mid zoom lens?
I dont have any experience of off camera flashes though, someone like Simpo can no doubt offer much better advice
It's pointless on anything above 50mm in my experience of the onboard one, you're obviously not going to use it on a big zoom and at the low end @ 10'ish mm I found a black blur where the flash didnt light up the low part of the frame. So a seperate flash would be needed there.
My take would be if you're taking pictures in say the 18-55 range then it could be useful, but anything below or above that might need something "a bit fancy" and it may be better to look at a quicker mid zoom lens?
I dont have any experience of off camera flashes though, someone like Simpo can no doubt offer much better advice
Where's Rob Dickinson when you need him?
Anyway, I have a Canon flash, and it's useful when you have to use flash, but 9 times out of 10 it's better (for me) to use one of my faster lenses. My favourite is the Tamron XR Di 28-75 f2.8 because it was cheap but gives good results. It lives on my camera. I have a Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8 which is great but heavy. I have a Canon 50mm f1.8 plasticky lens which is fun if you're taking pictures indoors in the evening. And a few others which I don't use.
Now personally, I wouldn't see the point of having a 55-200mm lens with a small aperture, but as I said, it depends what you're taking pictures of. But I would say I'd prefer a wide aperture prime (fixed focal length) over a small aperture zoom, and I prefer non-flash pictures. The exception is studio flash, I have an Elinchrom studio set but that's a whole different league...
Anyway, I have a Canon flash, and it's useful when you have to use flash, but 9 times out of 10 it's better (for me) to use one of my faster lenses. My favourite is the Tamron XR Di 28-75 f2.8 because it was cheap but gives good results. It lives on my camera. I have a Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8 which is great but heavy. I have a Canon 50mm f1.8 plasticky lens which is fun if you're taking pictures indoors in the evening. And a few others which I don't use.
Now personally, I wouldn't see the point of having a 55-200mm lens with a small aperture, but as I said, it depends what you're taking pictures of. But I would say I'd prefer a wide aperture prime (fixed focal length) over a small aperture zoom, and I prefer non-flash pictures. The exception is studio flash, I have an Elinchrom studio set but that's a whole different league...
andy-xr said:
I dont have any experience of off camera flashes though, someone like Simpo can no doubt offer much better advice
Actually I don't use off-camera flash (unless you mean studio flash which is rather different) - for wedding work I usually use bounce fill flash. Fast lenses are an alternative but will probably be over budget here. However, the results of (1) ambient light/large aperture versus (2) fill-flash/moderate aperture are very different. And whilst big apertures are great, you do have to be careful of DOF sometimes. I have a 50mm f1.4 and in practice f1.4 is quite unworkable, for me at least. So it all depends what you plan to do really 
I think that a hot-shoe flash, used on or off-camera, is an essential part of the photographer's armoury. I have some fast glass, but a bounced, diffused (with a Sto-Fen Omnibounce or similar) or dialed-down flash is just perfect for boosting low ambient light or softening shadows in brightly-lit subjects. It takes practice though, to get those subtle effects, but I think it's worth the time and effort.
I do agree though that those "in your face", full-on, on-camera flash shots can put you of using flash forever!
Ed ...
I do agree though that those "in your face", full-on, on-camera flash shots can put you of using flash forever!
Ed ...
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff