Want around-the-house lens, no flash

I think perhaps there has been some tendency in the responses to make this an either or situation, and it doesnt have to be. I'm all for fast lenses in low light to a point, but when you factor in the poor color and direction of some existing light, the added high iso noise, ultra shallow DOF (a mixed blessing) from working on the raw edge of your camera's capacity in all settings a flash can be a very easy answer. Obviously results improve with better flash technique and the arguments here got muddied by posting some direct flash shots that dont really show what you can do. But if you have to turn this into an either/or argument. Flash adds more capacity than just a fast lens.

I know this isn't just about me, but FWIW I'm not some anti-flash back-to-nature wacko. I might even get a flash before I get the Sigma (but after I do some reading in the flash section). Flash certainly has its place and I'm sure I'll be using it more as time goes on. Maybe earlier than I think. However, I wanted - still do - to be able to handle certain no-flash situations nicely. That's all. I've gotten great feedback on both the focal length and aperture I should be looking for, which was the original question, and I still have my ears open.

Another piece of helpful information is that your camera gear needs will change as your kids get older. When you have a newborn or a crawling baby, you can do fine with prime lenses and natural light, but when they start moving you need to consider zoom lenses, external flashes, and lens/body combinations that can focus quickly on a moving subject. It's kinda like switching from portrait photography to sports photography. When the kids get even older and start participating in organized sports, then you'll really test the limits of your gear and skill.

shaftmaster wrote in post #11126863
When the kids get even older and start participating in organized sports, then you'll really test the limits of your gear and skill.

If I'm not familiar with L lenses by then...

Yeah, I started off in DSLR-land because my oldest moved to a bigger field. Changes everything.

Well, I did a little experiment for shiggles. Two(2) of the following photos, I used bounce flash. The other two(2) without flash. Now I know some of you are going to cheat off the bat and check the EXIF. But for those with better gamesmanship, can you determine which had flash or not? BTW, I did not turn on/off/adjust any of the room lighting when switching between flash and non-flash. No slight-of-hand trickery.

1.

I'm gonna take a stab at it and go with #2 & #4 as being without flash.

Now that I've posted, I'm gonna check how I did...

looks like I didn't do well, lol

I'm thinking 3 is flashed, and 4 isn't. Look how blown out the toy is that he's using.

Well, then I look at the light coming through the blinds, and the flash would kill that, but a longer exposure would pick it up, so the other way around?

There's no question that knowing when to use and when not to use flash is a skill. It's one I've yet to master, but then this whole photography thing is all about mastery .

twoshadows wrote in post #11129469
lol, looks like I got it backwards

Good guess though. And to be honest.. if *I* hadn't taken these photos... I couldn't tell for certain which were flashed and which weren't.

waterrockets wrote in post #11129475
I'm thining 3 is flashed, and 4 isn't. Look how blown out the toy is that he's using.

Time to check the EXIF.

jwcdds wrote in post #11129492
Good guess though. And to be honest.. if *I* hadn't taken these photos... I couldn't tell for certain which were flashed and which weren't.

bobbyz wrote in post #11129497
None of these look like good shots (flash or not) but then I am picky.

There's a fine line somewhere, and the individual has to make the decision, where flash becomes useful. But I believe one should have the option (read: have a flash ready most, if not all of the time). Personally, I find it a bit of pain, but I'm learning the value of a properly used flash.

waterrockets wrote in post #11125726
twoshadows: Yeah, those bounces look great. Much more natural than the boy above with purple streaks in his hair.

Well, thanks, but I have to disagree with you about BobbyZ's photo . Either way it's all good. I speak out about using flash because I made my reputation on shooting without flash, but to the detriment of my end product. With today's modern, ETTL flashes and cameras, smooth integration of artificial and ambient light is as easy as it has ever been, in my estimation.

Happy shooting all!

And don't forget Imagenomic Noiseware Pro when you go high ISO...

I actually guessed them right but only because I knew I had to look for it. The shadow under the bunk bed was the clue for the second two but the upper one was a bit more of a guess based on the more even face illumination. Really tough, though.

But... I wasn't there, and I don't know what the room really looked like light-wise. How accurate are the pics? I just shot a few tests in a dimly-lit room with different pop-up diffusings (a sheet of paper in one case) and I definitely improved the illumination but didn't necessarily improve the accuracy of reproducing that scene (which isn't the only criterion, I understand).

BTW black cats are really tough subjects.