New Lens or Flash?

I'm looking to add something else to my kit, somewhere in the $4-500 range and I'm having a hard time choosing between another lens or a flash. I currently have a 18-55 IS, 50-250 IS and 50/1.8 with my T2i. I'd like to get another fast lens or a flash. The lenses I'm looking at are the 28-30 range (either Sigma or Canon) to get a faster lens that is wider than my 50. I'd also like to be able to get better low light photos with my 50-250 if that's possible with a flash but I'm not sure. I've never had/used a big flash so I don't know what to expect. Will it greatly improve the photos I take indoors at a distance of 30-50 feet or do I need to save up for a fast lens? What kind of 'effective distance range' can I expect with a 430 ex ii or 580 ex ii?

I'm going on vacation in a week and a half to the beach so if one or the other would be more useful for good photos at the beach that would be good to know.

You'll get a million different answers here and would probably get better advice in the gear sub-forum (they live for this sorta stuff), but...

I believe a flash will make the biggest overall impact on the quality of your images and versatility of your kit.

A lens in the $400-$500 range is not going to be anything world-beating.

As for 'effective range' of a flash...that can be anything depending on whether you use modifiers and/or have something to bounce the flash off (low ceilings etc).

I would go with the flash. While the latest cameras have come a long way in producing less noise at high iso they are still too noisy foe my liking. In the hands of someone sho knows how to work with a flash you can get shots that looks very natural and you don't get that deer in the headlights look. It takes time and practise to become proficient at it but it will happen.

Of course the real question is what are you shooting and how often. If you will use the new lens way more often than a flash then you have your decision. If you tend to do allot of indoor work then I would go with the flash. Only you can answer that question.

I'm sort of the "Church Photographer" at my church because I have nice gear and know how to use it, even though by the standards on this forum I am a total beginner!! I probably do more indoor work than outdoor. One situation that I usually get in and never get great photos are the kids' plays and people singing in church. I'm probably 30' away and the lighting isn't great. In that type of situation would the flash be more effective than a lens? The ceiling is about 25' high so I guess I could bounce off it. I think one day a 70-200 2.8 will be in my bag but not right now, I just don't have the funds.

A bounced flash is a huge improvement over direct one, so I'd say flash, as long as your church is OK with you using them during service. I'd say you will benefit from a nice flash more than from a different lens.

If you don't have flash yet, get one.
Makes huge difference and gives you more opportunities for sharp, properly exposed pictures.
I have two 100$ flashes and they are working as good as Canon more expensive ones.
With 400-500$ you could add flash and lens.
Sell Nifty-Fifty and get Sigma 30 1.4, for example.
Or upgrade 18-55 to something else, like Tamron 18-50 2.8.

get a flash and learn to use it well, you'll make leaps in your photography.

I guess flash it is. The church doesn't care if I use the flash, most parents are flashing away during any kids event we have. I don't take photos every Sunday, just on occasion. Thanks for the advice!

Difficult choice...Good luck with that...I'm personally going the lens route, but when the time comes that I want to add a flash into the mix it will be a whole nother ball game...

bennyG19 wrote in post #12996118
I'm sort of the "Church Photographer" at my church because I have nice gear and know how to use it, even though by the standards on this forum I am a total beginner!! I probably do more indoor work than outdoor. One situation that I usually get in and never get great photos are the kids' plays and people singing in church. I'm probably 30' away and the lighting isn't great. In that type of situation would the flash be more effective than a lens? The ceiling is about 25' high so I guess I could bounce off it. I think one day a 70-200 2.8 will be in my bag but not right now, I just don't have the funds.

Do you think they'd let you put a Speedlite on a stand closer to the stage? That'll get the light closer to the subject and off the lens axis. For $60 you can trigger it via radio.

Anyway, a flash will do more for your photography than a lens and will make the lenses you have more useful.

Man, I've been going through a similar process..... bought the t3i, kit lens, and the 55-250 with grand plans that the 50 1.8 would be my next purchase. Then I got the camera, read a ton, took a bunch of pics, and I think the flash has moved ahead of the fifty. I'm dealing with using the stock flash inside the house when taking pics of my 1 year old, and definitely seeing limitations like the shiny face / dark background, etc. I still desire the fifty, but the extra few stops and the limited DOF that comes with it just isn't gonna cut it with a mobile child in low light. Now it's just a matter of going cheap to start (yongnuo), getting the 430, or really saving and going straight to the 580.

Bottom line, get whatever will make your pics better, especially after diagnosing a need. Maybe you could ask around at the church to see if someone has a flash you can borrow for a week so you can see if it'll accomplish what you want it to......

go with the flash... far more exciting results.

church photography - a tripod is a must, get the speed up as far as you can without diminishing quality / get the ISO up as far as you can without diminishing quality. In most these cases the stage lights will do nicely. Flash for the staged shots.

eg : About 100 feet away ... NO FLASH... just a tripod.. i was at the back of auditorium... shot from same spot for each shot

1) far

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …rnphotography/6​081237483/

Here are some of my pics from last year's Christmas play by the youth at church. I think a flash would have helped more than a lens for these. (These were taken with my Pentax K2000, before I switched to Canon)

http://www.valleyforge​youth.com …22/three-wise-men-a-baby/

There's a lot of photos that I took on http://www.valleyforge​youth.com I also run that website for our church.

I had a very similar decision to make and decided to get a flash. It really made the biggest impact on my degree of freedom to be able to take pictures (it's about light afterall).
However, just as a warning. Using a flash is a completely different beast to master. While I am quite confident with my camera, I am still struggling to get a consistent picture quality with my flash.

You didnt mention it in your post but do you have a tripod yet? if not for $500 you can get a solid manfrotto setup ($200-250) and still have enough left over for a used 430 exii! the tripod will let you get some nice beach shots (especially self portraits of the two of you enjoying your vacation or even some long exposures) and be useful in church. check out the accessories forum for tripod suggestions.

Having a flash in your arsenal and learning to use it is another great skill set to have and will allow you all sorts of new shot possibilities with the lenses you already have.

besides, $500 bucks will buy you a solid lens but not an L. you already have a pretty good spread with the kit / tele / nifty fifty... unless you feel like your missing a prime or a specialty lens for your everyday shots you have a pretty wide selection of focal lengths to choose from with no gaps.