Want around-the-house lens, no flash

watt100 wrote in post #11120547
and it appears those pics above (jwcdds) the exif says taken with a EF24mm f/1.4L II USM - an expensive lens!

Yep. If you recall on my first reply to this thread, I noted that I was willing to both sacrifice ISO and lighten my wallet. One could get the 24L, 30/1.4, or the 35L. Doesn't mean you have to get the mark II.

Using bounced flash with a reflector-diffuser looks, most of the time, better than available light.

I used a 550EX with a Joe Demb Flash Diffuser Pro for this image ( dembflashproducts.com )

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …d7Vf#858911199_​3wdQp-A-LB

RPCrowe wrote in post #11120538
A bounced flash with a reflector diffuser will more often give you better lighting than available light. It will also not hurt your newborn's eyes since the flash is bounced...

I use an older 550EX or a 420EX with a Joe demb Flash Diffuser Pro ( dembflashproducts.com )

My flash images look like natural light...

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …d7Vf#858914758_​ZTMxQ-A-LB

Now this one looks nice - I guess some of those diffusers work !

jwcdds wrote in post #11120373
Yeah. But with the use of flash (unless you go full manual), you'd often miss the candid moment due to the pre-flash and ETTL.

No way ETTL is causing perceptible shutter lag. The pre-flash happens so fast it appears to be the same flash as the main burst.

Definitely, but people that are afraid or unwilling to use flash are missing out on an important tool. That is my only point.

RPCrowe wrote in post #11120585
Using bounced flash with a reflector-diffuser looks, most of the time, better than available light.

I used a 550EX with a Joe Demb Flash Diffuser Pro for this image ( dembflashproducts.com )

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …d7Vf#858911199_​3wdQp-A-LB

yes, it does look all evenly lit (and sharp!)

tkbslc wrote in post #11120588
No way ETTL is causing perceptible shutter lag. The pre-flash happens so fast it appears to be the same flash as the main burst.

Definitely, but people that are afraid or unwilling to use flash are missing out on an important tool. That is my only point.

*shrug* You can tell me it's impossible. But my own experience have shown me otherwise. Maybe I have 3 bad flashes (2x 580ex2 and 420ex). Maybe I've had malfunctioning camera bodies (40D and now 7D).

I've just been very unlucky with my equipment it seems. So I attempt to remedy that by working around it.

jwcdds wrote in post #11120618
*shrug* You can tell me it's impossible. But my own experience have shown me otherwise. Maybe I have 3 bad flashes (2x 580ex2 and 420ex). Maybe I've had malfunctioning camera bodies (40D and now 7D).

I've just been very unlucky with my equipment it seems. So I attempt to remedy that by working around it.

nice work around solution - an army of L primes !

Works for me. Invest in glass, that's what everyone says to do. I'm doing it.

watt100 wrote in post #11120563
Glad I helped you!

and when I look at those other "natural" pics I think "unsharp", fuzzy, bad colors, why not use flash !

Yeah, the later bounced example and the others recently in this thread are much more pleasing to look at. The flash light coming off a wall probably does well to modify it to a more appropriate temperature for the room, as well as diffusing and sourcing from a new direction.

waterrockets wrote in post #11120677


Yeah, the later bounced example and the others recently in this thread are much more pleasing to look at. The flash light coming off a wall probably does well to modify it to a more appropriate temperature for the room, as well as diffusing and sourcing from a new direction.

honestly I don't take a lot of indoor people pics but if I did the "Joe demb Flash Diffuser Pro" certainly looks like it achieves a good balance between ambient and flash light judging from the nice RPCrowe pics

I use a 580EXII and bounce it using the built in deflector card at various extensions. I have never been tempted to buy one of those addons. And as mentioned, there is no noticeable pre flash in ETTL unless you have red eye reduction enabled.

hpulley wrote in post #11118424
28mm f/1.8 would be nice and fast in that range. Sigma has a 30mm f/1.4 which would be really close. If you have the money, 35mm f/1.4 would be tighter but faster.

Indoors every stop counts so I'd get faster than f/2.8 which is a bit slow and besides, most cheap f/2.8 lenses are kind of soft wide open which can be a nice effect for portraits but may not be what you want all the time.

Agree and (maybe) disagree. I also think you should look into a lens faster than 2.8. My vote would be the 35mm 2.0 which is decent at 2.0 and much sharper at 2.2. Great lens.

If hpulley was refering to the 28mm 2.8 with the "soft wide open" statement, this would be incorrect. The 28mm 2.8 has incredible center sharpness wide open. In fact, it doesn't improve when stopping down. If you get a 2.8, this would be the one to get, but I think the extra stop of the 35mm f2 would be more useful.

seriously...get over your whole "i don't like the way flash looks" way of thinking...most the flash shots you see that you don't like aren't done well...i'd rather have a low-light prime shot without flash than a direct flash, like some of the shots shown here...but if you get a flash now, and learn to bounce it well you can get some more pleasing results...that said, i still think a good low-light prime has it's place...but sometimes even it won't cut it...here's a couple shots from my nephews b-day...showing the bounce flash...2nd shot is in the same lighting showing my niece...shot at 1/25, ISO 1000, f2.0...yeah i can pull that shot off with her, cause she's still young(and if you look really close you'll see i didn't pull it off anyways, but i think it's acceptable)...but with the boys moving around it would've just been a blur of balloons...my recommendation is buy a prime to start...something like the sigma 30mm f1.4...but quickly follow that with an external flash, cause you'll need it

RPCrowe's shots are indeed very brightly and evenly lit, but I wouldn't say they have very natural light. Good for documenting something's existence, maybe not so much for capturing the way it exists. The weary musician slumped at the bar after a long shift isn't treated well by surgical lighting.

Off the flash subject: I've been paying attention to the lens recommendations, especially the primes. BTW nearly all of the lenses seem to get soft at their lowest f-stops, looking at the test photos on the-digital-picture.com. I paid a lot of attention to those reviews simply because they were methodical and usually compared to other similar lenses every time.

Sigma 30/1.4 - $440 - good reviews
Canon 28/1.8 USM - $450 - not so good
Canon 35/2 - $300 - noisy, bad corner sharpness, good center
Canon 24/1.4 L - $1600 - not gonna happen

If I were buying a lens tomorrow for what I've described, I don't think I'd go wrong with the Sigma.