Quick question, get a new flash or get a new lens?

I mostly shoot in low light conditions and I manage with the flash I have (gear in sig) but I was also considering getting a 28mm 1.8 lens because its wide and I love primes. What would you guys suggest?

Amazingly, if I had spent $20 extra bucks when I bought my flash I could've gotten myself used 430ex

IMO, a flash is more versatile than a faster lens in most situations. Combining the two gives you the best of both worlds. If I only had to pick one, it would be the flash. The flash gives you the ability to create light and shape it to your needs, a faster lens only improves your ability to capture the light that already exists.....and, as we all know, existing light is often times not the best light

Take a look at Chapter 2:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=207470

Yep, getting a flash then. Thanks

Dunno. I think it depends on what style of photograph you're trying to take - available light is a better fit for me, so even though I have a 580EXII, I don't actually use it all that often.

It depends on just WHAT you "mostly shoot in low light conditions", doesn't it? And if you have consistent problems with the gear that you have now. You've got a flash & the 50mm. Flip a coin.

I think any "serious" photographer has to have a flash that can rotate and bounce, with at least the power of a 430. WAY too many uses for a good flash to ignore it.

rral22 wrote in post #13935129
I think any "serious" photographer has to have a flash that can rotate and bounce, with at least the power of a 430. WAY too many uses for a good flash to ignore it.

I don't remember Ansel Adams ever using flash, and I think he was a fairly serious photographer.

Like Frank said, it depends on what you're shooting.

Even tho I seldom use it, I wouldn't be without a flash. the options available are just too many to ignore, and I would suggest spending the extra bucks on a 580 with the thought that you will eventually run across a 430 that you can use for a "slave". Flash is a

It depends on what you shoot (i.e. will you be able to use a flash in those times)?

I love sneaking photos without drawing attention, so in those cases I can't use flash. My flash sees very little use actually, aside from taking pictures of still objects when not too many people are around.

jra wrote in post #13927343
IMO, a flash is more versatile than a faster lens in most situations. Combining the two gives you the best of both worlds. If I only had to pick one, it would be the flash. The flash gives you the ability to create light and shape it to your needs, a faster lens only improves your ability to capture the light that already exists.....and, as we all know, existing light is often times not the best light

I agree with this good answer. I don't like to work in high ISO unless I absolutely have to and if one learns to control their flash right you make fill flash look like it should and not get that deer in the headlight look.

Curtis N wrote in post #13936423
I don't remember Ansel Adams ever using flash, and I think he was a fairly serious photographer.

Like Frank said, it depends on what you're shooting.

Well, duh.

A flash is useless unless you shoot where you need a flash; then it becomes essential. (another, Duh, I guess.) I would doubt anyone would ever suggest to someone posting this question that the equipment list Ansel Adams lugged around is appropriate for very many people.

No matter what you shoot "normally", will you never get out the camera on your kid's birthday? How about Christmas morning? Or a wedding reception for your sister in some dark hall?

I always advise any new photographers I meet to get a flash (Ansel Adams never asked me) because the VAST majority of people who own cameras actually do stuff that would benefit from using a good one.