Deciding between low light lens and external flash... Limited budget

[Jhazard]

So I have about $200 to speed on either an external flash or a lens. I've been looking at the 35mm f/1.8 G AF-S DX lens nikon makes. But I'm not sure about the flashes. Everything I've looked at as far as flashes go are pretty high. Can anyone recommend a good flash for around $200 compatible with my nikon d5200 camera. What do you think would be more useful, lens or flash. I'm mainly just taking photos of my 10 month old, looking for something to help imagine quality for her first birthday pictures that will be taken inside with poor lighting.

 

[Designer]

..looking for something to help imagine quality for her first birthday pictures that will be taken inside with poor lighting.

I think it depends on where you want to go with your photography. Some people prefer available light photography, while others want to use flash.

For $200 you're probably looking at a third-party flash.

 

[robbins.photo]

So I have about $200 to speed on either an external flash or a lens. I've been looking at the 35mm f/1.8 G AF-S DX lens nikon makes. But I'm not sure about the flashes. Everything I've looked at as far as flashes go are pretty high. Can anyone recommend a good flash for around $200 compatible with my nikon d5200 camera. What do you think would be more useful, lens or flash. I'm mainly just taking photos of my 10 month old, looking for something to help imagine quality for her first birthday pictures that will be taken inside with poor lighting.

I use a Yongnuo 565 EX myself, at the time I bought it they ran a little over $100. Personally for the shooting conditions your using it for I'd probably go with the flash first. I have both a 50 mm 1.8 and an 85 mm 1.8 and while I love both lenses when I'm shooting indoors I really like having a flash - it sorts out a lot of lighting/shadow issues once you get a good handle on how best to use it.

 

[sashbar]

A fast lense is not a substitute for a flash and vice versa. I would look at a fast lense as a shallow DoF instrument rather than a lense that allows you to shoot indoors with poor lighting.

 

[JohnnyWrench]

Given the situation you're describing I'd go for the fast lens and crank up the ISO. Blasting the little one with an on-camera flash isn't going to yield great photos and it might just make the young'n mad. You don't want that at his/her birthday party. I have a young son and a poorly lit house so I'm speaking from experience here. In my case I use my 50 f1.8.

 

[Designer]

Blasting the little one with an on-camera flash..

Some of us wouldn't actually aim the flash directly at any human subject. We would probably bounce the flash off the ceiling, a wall, or any other nearby white surface.

 

[robbins.photo]

Blasting the little one with an on-camera flash..

Some of us wouldn't actually aim the flash directly at any human subject. We would probably bounce the flash off the ceiling, a wall, or any other nearby white surface.

Well sure... makes for a better photo. But it does take a lot of the fun out of it too.. so really, a trade off there.. lol

 

[Designer]

Well, sure, who doesn't like to see blown faces, red eyes, and the "halo shadow"?

But for the more timid of us, that's why there are ceilings and sometimes walls in buildings.

 

[JohnnyWrench]

Blasting the little one with an on-camera flash..

Some of us wouldn't actually aim the flash directly at any human subject. We would probably bounce the flash off the ceiling, a wall, or any other nearby white surface.

Touché.

 

[robbins.photo]

Well, sure, who doesn't like to see blown faces, red eyes, and the "halo shadow"?

But for the more timid of us, that's why there are ceilings and sometimes walls in buildings.

I always prefer the tried and true method:

image: Chilly Willy takes a picture

Lol

 

[KmH]

A flash unit will give you many more options than a fast lens will.

 

[JustJazzie]

I think my decision would depend on the equipment I already had. For instance- if I already had a 70-200 which gave me some nice DOF I would probably go flash, but if I only had a kit lens with a max focal length of 55 and 3.5 ish aperture, then I would go for the 50mm first.

 

[hamlet]

A fast lens is no substitute for a proper flash. But having said that, as an aperture hog i would choose the fast lens. dof is overrated anyhow.

 

[Derrel]

Get a flash, and also buy a "diffuser cap" for it, as well as a 1-meter, pigtail off-camera flash connecting cord, and you'll be doing yourself a BIG favor. A basic flash unit and an off-camera connecting cord allows you to shoot with some direction to the flash, using the diffuser cap on close-range shots, like macro stuff and near-macro, and general indoor close-ups at ranges under 6 to 10 feet. At longer distances than 10 feet, sure, you can just bounce the flash off of whatever's around. You can ALSO just put the flash in the hotshoe, and tilt it upwards to about a 45 degree angle, and fire it with the diffuser cap on, as a way to take the edge off of the raw flash light.

Flash brings with it its OWN LIGHT; a fast lens just allows you to shoot with a faster shutter speed in the same, crappy light that existed, and which will look even more crappy at smaller f/stops.

 

[greybeard]

In my opinion, a good external flash is essential. In the $200 range the Yongnuo 565EX is about as good as it gets (IMHO): Yongnuo YN-565EX I-TTL Flash