Just the ideas why you can get underexposure.
Bouncing has two disadvantages when it comes to the intensity of the light; firstly the surface that you bounce against absorbs light and it diffuses light and secondly as the distance to the subject increases it will be more spread (so less intense). Count on 2 stops loss to start off with; it might be a bit less, it might be more. Having a dark ceiling will also not help.
The widest setting for your flash is 24mm. Do you use the built-in wide panel when using the UWA zoom at 10mm? GN at 24mm is 28 (ISO100), with the wide panel you will probably loose a stop, so GN 'down to' 20. Bouncing will probably costs you 2 stops, so GN 'down to' 10. And next divide by the f-stop of 4 and the reach will be a maximum of 2.5 meters. A subject within that reach should be properly exposed if you have a white ceiling.
Direct (no bounce) flash will increase that reach to 5 meters;
I would start with some practicing / testing using a 'normal' lens (e.g. kit lens) and see how it works / if you can get it right. Do this somewhere in your own time; not when you have to get the shot during a family event etc.
Step 1
No bounce, no diffusers. Kit lens at 50mm, ISO100, aperture f/8 and a subject between 50cm and 5 meters from the camera should be properly exposed (GN is 40 according to
Sigma Imaging (UK) Ltd ).
Step 2
Same setup with bounce; increase ISO if necessarily.
Next repeat the steps with the UWA.
With direct flash at 10mm, you might see some vignetting as the flash beam (using the wide panel) is just not quite wide enough to cover the field of view of the lens. Without the wide panel, you should see some severe vignetting (bright in the center, darker around it).
Originally posted by basikal_kusayang Im afraid i dont get the correct exposure
As you don't get correct results currently, there is nothing against manual flash. Just practice it. Once you're familiar with your flash, you will also be less worried about the time it takes to set it up.