Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-27-2008, 12:30 PM   #1
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Minnesota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,529
Lens vs Flash for indoor use?

I just read a thread on the "other" forum and came across someone looking to buy a lens for indoor shooting. I have the 18-250 right now and I feel that for the type of indoor shooting that I do I would be better off getting a flash rather than getting faster glass. I have a A50 1:2 and a 28 1:2 as well but I now think that a tilt/swivel flash and a diffuser would be a better investment at this point in time. I understand that faster glass is always desirable. However for me the cost is a little prohibitive to buy a 50-135. So the question is for equal costs what would you rather buy a flash or a lens?

12-27-2008, 12:57 PM   #2
Veteran Member
mithrandir's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Maryland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,895
I think you will have more flexibility with the flash. A fast lens will do nothing for backlight indoor pictures where a flash (fill flash) will help to make many more shots with all the lenses you currently own. Make sure you get a flash with reach so you can bounce off walls and ceilings and get more even exposures.
12-27-2008, 01:18 PM   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, PRofMA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,026
Flash. You have DOF issues if you shoot at f/2. I usually run f/5.6 to keep most of the people in focus.
12-27-2008, 02:46 PM   #4
Veteran Member
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,806
Go for the flash, it will be more versatile than a longer lens.

I also recommend a diffuser for when you can't bounce. Wireless flash with an umbrella and stand is really nice if you're into posed portraits.

12-27-2008, 02:52 PM   #5
Veteran Member
nostatic's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: socal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,575
I despise flash, but part of that might be because I never really learned how to use it properly. However even with proper use, and flash disrupts the environment. For what I like to shoot, and my approach to photography, that isn't ok. I take fast glass any day of the week. It is amazing what you can do handheld, no flash indoors with a K20d and any of the FA ltds (31/43/77).
12-27-2008, 03:50 PM   #6
Veteran Member
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,685
I'm also someone who really dislikes flash and will put up with high ISO noise, wide aperture lens softness, shallow DOF, a little motion blur from slow shutter speeds, and even slight missed focus from using MF if it means I can capture the natural lighting of the situation and not have to alter it via flash. So absolutely no question in my mind: if I had neither a fast lens nor a good flash and you gave me a couple hundred bucks, a fast lens or two would be my next purchase. You can get a used manual focus 28, 50, and 100 for around $200 for all three if you want; that would make me MUCH happier than any flash possibly could.

Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 12-27-2008 at 08:52 PM.
12-27-2008, 04:00 PM   #7
Veteran Member
Mike Cash's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,950
QuoteOriginally posted by MrApollinax Quote
I have a A50 1:2 and a 28 1:2 as well but I now think that a tilt/swivel flash and a diffuser would be a better investment at this point in time. I understand that faster glass is always desirable. However for me the cost is a little prohibitive to buy a 50-135.
The 50-135 is f2.8. For a zoom that is admirably fast. But since both your primes are faster I wonder why you mention it as though the 50-135 were faster than they are.

QuoteQuote:
So the question is for equal costs what would you rather buy a flash or a lens?
I'd split the difference and buy both used and have money left over.

12-27-2008, 04:10 PM   #8
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Minnesota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,529
Original Poster
Mike,

I bring up the 50-135 as it is the fastest zoom that covers part of the range that my 18-250 covers. Sorry I didn't make that more clear in my previous post. As far as cost goes all of the newer fast glass is too expensive now after the holiday spending. So I was thinking that for the type of shooting I do that a flash may be a better option if I wanted to spend 100-150USD on more equipment. I asked the question to the forum to see if you had the money for a flash or an equivelent priced lens what would you choose?
12-27-2008, 04:21 PM   #9
Veteran Member
nostatic's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: socal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,575
QuoteOriginally posted by MrApollinax Quote
So I was thinking that for the type of shooting I do that a flash may be a better option if I wanted to spend 100-150USD on more equipment.
That pretty much encapsulates it. Depends on your shooting. If you can get away with flash and know how to use it, and more importantly, if you're shooting in an environment where flash will be welcome or at least tolerated, then that may be your best bet. Only you know your shooting environment. I know that for mine, I would never want to fire a flash, and frankly if I'm somewhere and a flash starts going off I get annoyed. And I certainly will end up acting differently. If you're doing staged portraits, not a problem. Candids...well, then I think it can be a big problem.
12-27-2008, 06:51 PM   #10
Veteran Member
kshapero's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: South Florida, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 437
I am looking into a Voigtlander 40mm/f2 because I hate flash. For $379 it seems like a good deal.
12-27-2008, 07:55 PM   #11
Veteran Member
Mike Cash's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,950
I've always wondered how many people really "hate" flash and how many people just can't be bothered to learn to use flash well. Poorly used flash sucks. No doubt about that. As far as the disruptive effect of flash bringing attention to the picture taking going on in the room, though, that's something that can't be denied.

If you already have pretty fast (f2 primes) lenses, OP, and a budget of $100~150 the likelihood of getting a sufficiently faster lens to make much of a difference is sort of low. I'd recommend looking for an old Pentax AF280T flash unit. They're good, reliable, have bounce/swivel, and best of all should only cost you around $30.

Here are some shots taken using the AF280T in ceiling bounce on a K100D. I suppose the flash "haters" could find fault with them, but I was pleased with the results.
12-27-2008, 09:01 PM   #12
Veteran Member
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,685
QuoteOriginally posted by Mike Cash Quote
I've always wondered how many people really "hate" flash and how many people just can't be bothered to learn to use flash well.
I'll readily admit to both :-). I suck at using flash, and have plenty of pictures of where my subject is only half lit by incorrectly bounced flash to prove it. I've certainly seen *others* make good use of flash, although much of it is in situations (still life, posed portraits, etc) where I don't have the same inherent objections to the idea of it as I do with, say, candids, or concert photography. It's also more "stuff" to deal with than I prefer.

QuoteQuote:
If you already have pretty fast (f2 primes) lenses, OP, and a budget of $100~150 the likelihood of getting a sufficiently faster lens to make much of a difference is sort of low.
Excellent point. You're not going to beat those two enough in speed to make a difference. I was answering the general question being asked more so that dealing with the specifics of the OP's situation. However, since he mentioned the 50-135, perhaps he was considering expanding his prime collection into the medium telephoto range. And if we're talking concert/event photography, I'd still say a fast longer lens (like my most-used lens, the M100/2.8) makes more sense than a flash.
12-27-2008, 09:16 PM   #13
Veteran Member
Mike Cash's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,950
Of course, the option of upping ISO is always there, as has already been pointed out. There are freeware programs available to help deal with noise, if necessary.
12-28-2008, 11:14 AM   #14
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: carpentersville, IL
Posts: 693
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I'm also someone who really dislikes flash and will put up with high ISO noise, wide aperture lens softness, shallow DOF, a little motion blur from slow shutter speeds, and even slight missed focus from using MF if it means I can capture the natural lighting of the situation and not have to alter it via flash. So absolutely no question in my mind: if I had neither a fast lens nor a good flash and you gave me a couple hundred bucks, a fast lens or two would be my next purchase. You can get a used manual focus 28, 50, and 100 for around $200 for all three if you want; that would make me MUCH happier than any flash possibly could.
natural lighting? As in the color or the amount of light?
12-28-2008, 12:09 PM   #15
Veteran Member
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,806
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
You can get a used manual focus 28, 50, and 100 for around $200 for all three if you want; that would make me MUCH happier than any flash possibly could.
He already has 28 and 50mm primes. A 100mm lens is not that useful for shooting in a house IME. Anyway, all he has to do is step forward a couple of feet with the 50mm to achieve the same thing.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, flash, glass, lens, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is f/2.8 enough for indoor shooting w/o using flash or tripod? shang Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 07-13-2010 03:22 PM
Indoor /no flash seacapt Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 22 01-08-2010 12:09 AM
Which lens (without using flash) for indoor use? vmax84 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 07-01-2009 11:48 AM
2.8 Lens for Indoor Sports without Flash? joelovotti Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 08-13-2008 07:36 PM
PL Filter / Indoor with Flash zenzenyoyo Pentax DSLR Discussion 8 11-01-2007 04:24 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:38 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top