Originally posted by Mike Cash 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.
Quote: 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.