Help me settle this dispute...

mwcfarms · Apr 15, 2011

I have the same lighting set up you do. I have one more light and I use Cactus 4 wireless triggers on both my SB600 and the Bee's. Little kit was $45 dollars.

Kerbouchard · Apr 15, 2011

manaheim said:
What any of you people would do is effectively irrelevant because you're not her.

She has not presented enough information to anyone in order for you to make an educated assessment for what SHE should do.

I would never, under any circumstances, buy constant lighting. I'd buy a lens. However, I shoot buildings and occasionally shoot people outside on location and deal with either no lighting or a flash. That's what I do, so constant lighting isn't something I use much.

Does that mean it's what SHE should do? No. My experience has zero relevance to her situation unless she happens to shoot what I shoot or something with the same requirements. Until she has stated what she shoots, every other "I would do XXXX!" post in this thread is useless at best, and misleading at worst.

How is getting feedback from people that used to be a similar situation in any way irrelevant? If the OP had said, "I shoot astrophotography, should I get a new lens or a flash" it would be a different story. But, since she feels the 50mm 1.4 can benefit her over the 1.8, we can assume she is not primarily interested in Macro, architecture, or astrophotography. We also know that she feels an Alien bee can benefit her. So, we can further gather that she shoots general things, people, food, items that peak her interest, etc. Kind of a general shooter, which most photogs are.

I can also look back on my own experiences and realize where the breakthroughs were and which equipment purchases just sit on the shelf. Just because you are incapable of offering advice doesn't mean that everybody else's feedback is useless or misleading. Don't apply your shortcomings to other people.

kundalini · Apr 15, 2011

raphaelaaron said:
the best lighting is always free.... sunlight!

But it's not always available and certainly not consistant.

I am an advocate to get better glass, but let's face it, you already have the 50mm f/1.8 which is more than adequate to shoot portraits / studio stuff. The f/1.4 is certainly a better lens, but in a studio situation, you will more than likely be stopping down your lens to the f/5.6 to f/11 range, so the point is moot for shooting in low light. Portraits are all about lighting. Hell, I can get great portraits with a kit lens if the lighting is good. Although I got the White Lightining series from PCB, I can easily combine my Nikon speedlights with the studio lights. There might be a slight color difference, but not enough that I'm too critical about yet..... and I am critical.

So my vote would be to go for lighting. However, you also need to consider the ancillaries needed. Modifiers, stands, triggers, and the list goes on.

Buckster · Apr 15, 2011

Like most who've replied, I too would go for the lighting, for all the reasons given.

Village Idiot · Apr 15, 2011

AtuspidsGoddess said:
...if you were on a tight budget and could only get one or the other, is it better to get a good lens or good lighting set?

The choice is between the 50mm 1.4 G series or an AB B800...both are about $300 give or take a few bucks.

What you already have in the bag is a 50mm 1.8D and a low grade continuous lighting set with shoot through umbrellas and one strobe.

To the tally board!

You can stick the lens on the camera and shoot. For the bee, you need a light stand and most likely a modifer. If I'm shooting with just one mono light, I'd also want a reflect or whiteboard, so the price goes up for real world usability. For a decent stand and reflector and softbox, you're spending an extra $170ish, so about $449+ tax and shipping for a a working strobe setup. Even larger umbrellas would run you $40 for one of questionable quality at a large enough size.

And what to pick totally depends on what you're shooting. If you're shooting portraiture where you depend on lighting, then light is the way to go. If you're shooting natural light, street, or any other type of photography that doesn't depend on additional lighting equipment, then the lens is the obvious choice. There is no real right answer, especially if you're not telling us what you're shooting.

ghache · Apr 15, 2011

I would go with the light, like derrel said, i would get 2 flash point unit! and you can be my wife, ill buy you all the strobes and lens you want

Geaux · Apr 15, 2011

I'm with the lighting too, it opens up another HUGE door in photography. I'm learning it right now and love it w/o a doubt.

Oh and I second the "my God, you are gorgeous" sentiments

Derrel · Apr 15, 2011

manaheim said:
What any of you people would do is effectively irrelevant because you're not her.

She has not presented enough information to anyone in order for you to make an educated assessment for what SHE should do.

I would never, under any circumstances, buy constant lighting. I'd buy a lens. However, I shoot buildings and occasionally shoot people outside on location and deal with either no lighting or a flash. That's what I do, so constant lighting isn't something I use much.

Does that mean it's what SHE should do? No. My experience has zero relevance to her situation unless she happens to shoot what I shoot or something with the same requirements. Until she has stated what she shoots, every other "I would do XXXX!" post in this thread is useless at best, and misleading at worst.

The OP has recently been posting some decent female beauty portraiture work...and in addition, her question is quite simple, and qualified by her current ownership of a 50/1.8 Nikon lens, and the "debate" is between buying the 50/1.4 G-Nikkor or an Alien Bee 800. That seems like a dead-easy question to answer. She has presented plenty of information for any Nikon shooter familiar with the 50/1.8 Nikkor to make an educated assessment. Either 1) buy the new 50/1.4 G lens and get a SLOWER-focusing lens that's 2/3 of an f/stop faster, but with only so-so bokeh OR 2)buy a powerful monolight that would allow her access and entry into studio flash in the Alien Bee lineup. This is not rocket science--this is a very,very simple case of what economists call "marginal utility analysis", and frankly, the marginal utility benefit of a slightly wider-aperture, but slower-focusing, expensive Nikkor 50mm pales in comparison to the marginal utility benefit that would come with a brand new utility to her overall package: she would own a professionally-capable studio flash unit if she chose the AB over the new 50.

dylanstraub · Apr 15, 2011

Let me just third the OMG statement. Thanks for posting.

manaheim · Apr 15, 2011

Derrel said:
manaheim said:

What any of you people would do is effectively irrelevant because you're not her.

She has not presented enough information to anyone in order for you to make an educated assessment for what SHE should do.

I would never, under any circumstances, buy constant lighting. I'd buy a lens. However, I shoot buildings and occasionally shoot people outside on location and deal with either no lighting or a flash. That's what I do, so constant lighting isn't something I use much.

Does that mean it's what SHE should do? No. My experience has zero relevance to her situation unless she happens to shoot what I shoot or something with the same requirements. Until she has stated what she shoots, every other "I would do XXXX!" post in this thread is useless at best, and misleading at worst.

Click to expand...

The OP has recently been posting some decent female beauty portraiture work...and in addition, her question is quite simple, and qualified by her current ownership of a 50/1.8 Nikon lens, and the "debate" is between buying the 50/1.4 G-Nikkor or an Alien Bee 800. That seems like a dead-easy question to answer. She has presented plenty of information for any Nikon shooter familiar with the 50/1.8 Nikkor to make an educated assessment. Either 1) buy the new 50/1.4 G lens and get a SLOWER-focusing lens that's 2/3 of an f/stop faster, but with only so-so bokeh OR 2)buy a powerful monolight that would allow her access and entry into studio flash in the Alien Bee lineup. This is not rocket science--this is a very,very simple case of what economists call "marginal utility analysis", and frankly, the marginal utility benefit of a slightly wider-aperture, but slower-focusing, expensive Nikkor 50mm pales in comparison to the marginal utility benefit that would come with a brand new utility to her overall package: she would own a professionally-capable studio flash unit if she chose the AB over the new 50.

Ah. I stand reasonably corrected. I should probably have known with you responding.

manaheim · Apr 15, 2011

Kerbouchard said:
manaheim said:

What any of you people would do is effectively irrelevant because you're not her.

She has not presented enough information to anyone in order for you to make an educated assessment for what SHE should do.

I would never, under any circumstances, buy constant lighting. I'd buy a lens. However, I shoot buildings and occasionally shoot people outside on location and deal with either no lighting or a flash. That's what I do, so constant lighting isn't something I use much.

Does that mean it's what SHE should do? No. My experience has zero relevance to her situation unless she happens to shoot what I shoot or something with the same requirements. Until she has stated what she shoots, every other "I would do XXXX!" post in this thread is useless at best, and misleading at worst.

Click to expand...

How is getting feedback from people that used to be a similar situation in any way irrelevant? If the OP had said, "I shoot astrophotography, should I get a new lens or a flash" it would be a different story. But, since she feels the 50mm 1.4 can benefit her over the 1.8, we can assume she is not primarily interested in Macro, architecture, or astrophotography. We also know that she feels an Alien bee can benefit her. So, we can further gather that she shoots general things, people, food, items that peak her interest, etc. Kind of a general shooter, which most photogs are.

I can also look back on my own experiences and realize where the breakthroughs were and which equipment purchases just sit on the shelf. Just because you are incapable of offering advice doesn't mean that everybody else's feedback is useless or misleading. Don't apply your shortcomings to other people.

There may be more information you have from knowing this person outside of this thread but based upon what I saw there wasn't a lot of information presented by OP.

It's possible I've just gotten wound around the axle on this one... there is a real tendency on forums for people to say "THIS IS WHAT I WOULD DO!" without anything other than a person saying "What kind of camera should I buy?" or detail at about that level. Perhaps this may not have been the case here, but aside from Derrel's points, I don't see it.