Hi, I thinking to buy Nikon D50 kit package before my australia trip, however, my budget didnt allow, i have to choose between getting a SB600 first or 70-300mm len first.. Can CSers here pls advise? Thanks in advance!
fWord said:It depends. What sort of subjects do you usually like to photograph? For some people, it would be easy to do without a flash, whereas others might consider it a priceless piece of equipment. Consider first if your built-in flash has successfully fulfilled your needs so far.
dreamerz said:wat type of photography are u doing?
Cyber said:U have to set the piority of whether u wana shoot in the daylight or not....
Becos getting a flash allow u to do shooting when the lights are out....but for lens wise maybe it would be feasible to use during the daytime as most of the time shots are taken in the daylight, flash is however optional during daytime.....:think: [my personal opinions]
dragos said:i will go lens first...try to up the ISO and use ambient light..
hirowen said:Actually i thinking of buying flash just for my fish photography, of cuz this type of thing is very hard to say 1, when u are in australia, you dont even know what kind of photograph you will taking. I am more interested into macro world, but as you can see, when i go to oz, there is little macro shot for me to capture, so i was thinking of getting a 70-300mm lens instead of macro lens first, but what trouble me now is if only can get one, which is more suitable for travel trip? Lens first or flash first?
fWord said:I see. Flash for fish photography sounds challenging though, because the flash would probably give very harsh reflections off the front of the tank, unless you bounce it and use a reflector to direct the light into the tank from above. If I were in your shoes, a lens would be the thing I'd get first, although the kit lens would probably suffice for most landscape shots.
For the lens, look at the newer Sigma 70-300mm. It'll probably be good for large macro shots with its high reproduction ratio...1:2 if I'm not mistaken.
hirowen said:Actually i thinking of buying flash just for my fish photography, of cuz this type of thing is very hard to say 1, when u are in australia, you dont even know what kind of photograph you will taking. I am more interested into macro world, but as you can see, when i go to oz, there is little macro shot for me to capture, so i was thinking of getting a 70-300mm lens instead of macro lens first, but what trouble me now is if only can get one, which is more suitable for travel trip? Lens first or flash first?
justarius said:If you are getting it solely for the purpose of your OZ trip, then if I were you, I would be getting the lens first. To me, more photo opportunities would be lost by not having a long lens than by not having a flash. Unless of course you are going to OZ to just take picture of your family/loved ones all the time, with the scenery as a backdrop.
dreamerz said:i would say go for the lens...if u really need a flash n ve no money to invest...get a cheap 1 then...those tigger only flash...i ve use it b4...its quite gd...jus that u need to do the setting urself without the help of e-TTL
hirowen said:Wow, that sounds tempting. but what is the price? I cant afford to have too expensive one, i thinking of buying second hand ones
espn said:For travelling, you don't need flash. Your D50 has built in flash, get your glass first. 17-55 or 17-35 would be good :thumbsup:
fWord said:If I remember correctly it goes for slightly over $300 new. It's the Sigma APO 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG MACRO Check out the pricelist here too:
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=145126&page=5
hirowen said:I going with my camp mate for official duty. Will be staying there for 1 month. So should be capture pic likes landscape, kangaroos, koala bears and anything interesting ...