Lens or Flash

[slat]

I have been thinking of upgrading from my 18-55 kit lens to the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM.
I have also been thinking of getting a off camera flash https://www.adorama.com/fplfsmzcak2.html.
Which would give me the most benefit? I'm stuck pretty much on price range on the lens but obviously have room for suggestions on the flash.

 

[zombiesniper]

What type of photography are you looking to do?

This could guide people to better suggestions.

 

[Soocom1]

Need to know your intent first.

Who , what, where, when, how, etc.

 

[Derrel]

A good knowledge of flash use applies to any lens mounted on your camera.

 

[slat]

I have a Canon 80D. I shoot some landscapes, birds, family and just some walk around stuff sometimes.

 

[slat]

My places of picture taking could be from the woods, mountains, beach, backyard or anywhere.

 

[Warhorse]

Slat, I would think the flash would get some good use for you. Think fill flash.

 

[zulu42]

The new lens might show a small increase in quality, most people might never notice. At such a similar focal length, your photos are going to look very much the same. But a flash with off camera capability opens up a new world of possibilities. I'd get the flash.

 

[Soocom1]

Depends:

If the subject is within a certian distance, then a fill flash is going to work wonders. But if over a certian distance (usually dependant on conditions) then the fill flash is worthless.
Then it defaults to the lens and camera settings.

That's a tricky subject that requires a bit of practice.

 

[Designer]

I have been thinking of upgrading from my 18-55 kit lens to the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM.
I have also been thinking of getting a off camera flash https://www.adorama.com/fplfsmzcak2.html.
Which would give me the most benefit? I'm stuck pretty much on price range on the lens but obviously have room for suggestions on the flash.

Get the flash. No contest. The lens you reference adds nothing to your photography gear, but an off-camera flash (with a way to fire it off camera of course) will step up your game like no lens will.

 

[Designer]

If the subject is within a certian distance, then a fill flash is going to work wonders. But if over a certian distance (usually dependant on conditions) then the fill flash is worthless.

You're assuming the flash is positioned near the camera with no possibility of moving it closer to the subject.

 

[Derrel]

Photography is light writing. Get the light source. It will work with any different lens you might ever have. The lens you are thinking about it's not that different from what you already have. Once you start making your own lighting, it opens up a new world in photography. When you can only shoot during the daylight hours, photography is limiting.

 

[Soocom1]

If the subject is within a certian distance, then a fill flash is going to work wonders. But if over a certian distance (usually dependant on conditions) then the fill flash is worthless.

You're assuming the flash is positioned near the camera with no possibility of moving it closer to the subject.

No...

There are multitude of conditions where a flash is useless regardless of position to the camera.
Fog, snow, any particulate and certain lighting conditions where the flash would not add to the quality of the picture.

 

[Derrel]

I never knew flash was useless in so many conditions. I guess the past 45 years of using flash have lulled me into a sense of security.

I I have read enough posts to have formed the opinion that for those people who consider themselves "available light" photographers, the idea of flash is daunting.

The flash bulb was invented in 1928, and professional studio flash is generally considered to have been invented in 1939. Flash opens up several avenues of photography that are Beyond The Realm of conventional shutters and conventional everyday exposure times and film ISO ratings.

Even a relatively inexpensive made-in-China Speedlight can offer you a "shutter speed" (flash duration) as short as one thirty-thousanths of a second. Dr. Harold Edgerton and his early work in high speed water and milk drop photography occurred in the 1930s, and just this week I saw some quarantined photographer who posted his first-ever experiments in water drop photography, which were made possible only by having a flash.

 

[Soocom1]

I never knew flash was useless in so many conditions. I guess the past 45 years of using flash have lulled me into a sense of security.

I guess for those people who considered themselves "available light" photographers, the idea of flash is daunting.

The flash bulb was invented in 1928, and professional studio Flash is generally considered to have been invented in 1939. Flash opens up several Avenues of photography that are Beyond The Realm of conventional shutters and conventional everyday exposure timed and film ISO ratings.

Even a relatively inexpensive made-in-china Speedlight can offer you a shutter speed as short asone thitrty-thousands of a second. Dr. Harold Edgerton and his early work in high speed water and milk drop photograp occurred in the 1930s, and just this week I saw some quarantined photographer who posted his first-ever experiments in water drop photography, which were made possible only by having a flash.

Ive used flash in all of these conditions with recommendations on how to use them.
I personally have had very bad results especially when the distance is far greater.
but that's just me I guess.

But is that with a flash close to the subject or some distance away?