Yet another question about Lens Vs Flash Gun.

Hello,
If this has been answered before, I apologise in advance. There was no answer specifically compared a Sigma 30mm with Canon 50mm both with maximum f/1.4 & Flash Gun.

I own a Canon 40D and the kit lens 17-85 IS USM Lens. I am an amateur. I find with aperture around 4 in my present lens the image focused is not appear to be clear enough.
In indoor photography, I find limitations with my present kit lens[17-85 IS lens]. I like the look of all around blurred when taken a photo of an individual's face with large aperture.

I have shortlisted to buy either one of the following lens or a Speedlite Flash Gun

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HMS [f does not reach above 16!!]

Canon 50-mm f/1.4 USM

Or

Speedlite 430EX II flash gun.

I would greatly appreciate your opinion

Regards

I would go with the flash in a heartbeat. A flash opens up a whole new world of photography. For indoor photos it can't be beat. Most, not all, lenses are a little soft wide open so even with a fast lens upgrade, you are usually still better off with a flash and stopping down your lens. I shoot with the kit lens on a 450D (18-55 IS) and it produces great images indoors with a flash.

If you want to blur the background more the flash won't do it. If you have enough working space, the longer focal length lens will give you more shallow depth of field, so I would say go with the 50 f/1.4 or 85 f/1.8 (I know you didn't list this one but it is a great choice for face shots).

The flash will create more possibilities for you. A good flash, and the knowledge of how to use it properly, should be part of every photographer's equipment.

I believe you will learn a lot more about photography, lighting, and exposure by purchasing an external flash.

By experimenting you will learn how to create soft lighting effects through bouncing, diffusing, and direct techniques, as well as freezing high speed action. Don't worry that the Sigma doesn't have f/16, although are you really sure about that? Seems odd that it would lack that setting.

swjim wrote in post #9320562
If you want to blur the background more the flash won't do it. If you have enough working space, the longer focal length lens will give you more shallow depth of field, so I would say go with the 50 f/1.4 or 85 f/1.8 (I know you didn't list this one but it is a great choice for face shots).

There is a Tonica 85mm f/1.8 available for Canon fit. Has anybody heard Tonica lens?
I know Tamron but not Tonica!!

Are you sure you don't mean Tokina? They are a respected mfg. although I didn't realize that they made a 85 f1.8.

Never heard of it snowshine, not in 40+ years of photography. Are you sure you don't mean Tokina?

snowshine wrote in post #9320632
There is a Tonica 85mm f/1.8 available for Canon fit. Has anybody heard Tonica lens?
I know Tamron but not Tonica!!

Don't worry that the Sigma doesn't have f/16, although are you really sure about that? Seems odd that it would lack that setting.[/QUOTE]

Sorry for not being clear with my statement. Sigma goes up-to f/16 where as most others I know of[very limited knowledge of mine] have f/22.
Would it be advantageous to have f/22 to take greater depth of focus in outdoor shooting of environment on a tripod mounted camera?!!. That was my thought brought that to type!!

Regards

sapearl wrote in post #9320660
Never heard of it snowshine, not in 40+ years of photography. Are you sure you don't mean Tokina?

My sincere apologies. It is Opteka 85mm f/1.4 Telephoto Portrait lens.
I am sorry to have misled.

Regards

The minute I see the words Opteka and lens used in the same sentence I know there can be nothing good to follow. If you're concerned with price, just go for the Canon 50mm f1.8 rather than the 1.4.

Yes, it would in some circumstances and depending upon the lens..... although you can get some diffraction degradation of the image at such small apertures.

Most lenses have a sweet spot aperture setting; ie - images are best at say f/8 or f/11.... again, it varies from lens to lens.

And sometimes it's an issue that can only be determined on a test bench, and is not really visible on a nicely matted and framed print, hanging in a well lit gallery, seen from proper viewing distance. In other words measurebators may see it, but people out for a gallery stroll may not notice it.

Bottom line - you get what you pay for. Typically, cheap lenses result in less than ideal images. Read the reviews here, check FredMiranda, chat or PM with folks who have a particular lens in their gear list.

snowshine wrote in post #9320661
......Would it be advantageous to have f/22 to take greater depth of focus in outdoor shooting of environment on a tripod mounted camera?!!. That was my thought brought that to type!!

Regards

Np - I usually mangle the English language pretty well myself before having at least two cups of coffee.....

snowshine wrote in post #9320682
My sincere apologies. It is Opteka 85mm f/1.4 Telephoto Portrait lens.
I am sorry to have misled.

Regards

With a crop camera, I'd recommend the lens first, followed by a flash later. You would be better off with either - depending on your interests - the Canon 35f2 or the 50f1.4 or the Sigma 30f1.4. They are listed in order of low to high price.
I got the Canon 35f2 and it will serve as a general purpose lens and low light lens indoors. It is sharp and has fast focus. I use it at f2 for photos of people indoors. It is a very sharp lens.
Lots of people like the Sigma. The Canon 50f1.4 is a really good lens and sharp. From what I can tell, it is good for portraits at f2.

I love my sigma 30, its one of my most used lenses but a flash definitely opens up even more aspects of photography.

In an ideal world, you should get both off the bat but obviously thats not always the case. Depending on the lighting in most places you shoot, especially indoors, a strobe is probably the way to go. It is amazing how bad lighting is indoors. Even with all houselights on, the lighting is far better outdoors on a cloudy day.