Which one should i buy first? Lens? Flash?

[ptwong]

Hi Guys, newbie here. Need some advice on what to buy first?

Recently became the proud owner of a 300D, been using the kit lens. Found that it limits my shots. Keen to get one 28-135 IS but at the mean time, thinking of getting a flash too. (420 or 550EX) Pls advice.

 

[Snowcrash]

IMHO, buy neither.

Please share what limitation you face with your 300d and kit lens.

then other 300d or DSLR users can advice how to work around it.

 

[shutterfly]

How do u work around things like u need to fill up more of the subject in the frame but cannot move closer?

 

[coke21]

For myself I started with a pretty wide range lens. 28-105mm so did not really need another lens. But it took me quite a while, ard a year to finally get a flash.

Guess at the end of the day, it really depends on yourself how you want to develop your photographic skills. In the beginning, i pretty much concentrated on day light before going on to night photography. I then realise a tripod was neccessary but still did not get a flash.

The flash was one of the last things I got. so guess its a personal preference and how you want to progress in your shooting that will decide what to get next.

I suppose finances will always be an issue so think through what you want to do. Just my opinion.

 

[ptwong]

IMHO, buy neither.

Please share what limitation you face with your 300d and kit lens.

then other 300d or DSLR users can advice how to work around it.

Basically like wat shuttlefly has written, have a problem filling up my pics. I like to go into taking sports events and thus would like to have a lens with a better zoom. The kit lens is good for daily uses but not competent enough for a special event. (maybe it's just my skill ha...)Tried my boss's L series 300mm (don't know the model) found it really good and really engaging thus keen to start baby steps to building up to that.

 

[ptwong]

For myself I started with a pretty wide range lens. 28-105mm so did not really need another lens. But it took me quite a while, ard a year to finally get a flash.

Guess at the end of the day, it really depends on yourself how you want to develop your photographic skills. In the beginning, i pretty much concentrated on day light before going on to night photography. I then realise a tripod was neccessary but still did not get a flash.

The flash was one of the last things I got. so guess its a personal preference and how you want to progress in your shooting that will decide what to get next.

I suppose finances will always be an issue so think through what you want to do. Just my opinion.

Totally agree with you on the finance bit. That's why need experts' advice
My reason for wanting to get a flash is because when you go for any function the on board flash cannot make it, making the pic look hash. Tried a 550Ex recently at a friend's wedding, it looked much better with it.

 

[coke21]

Totally agree with you on the finance bit. That's why need experts' advice
My reason for wanting to get a flash is because when you go for any function the on board flash cannot make it, making the pic look hash. Tried a 550Ex recently at a friend's wedding, it looked much better with it.

If you think you are going to take a lot more "event" kind of shots and that they are going to be indoors, then the next thing you should probably get is a good flash.

If its gonna be like once in a blue moon kind of deal then go with another lens..

 

[Leokessler]

If you think you are going to take a lot more "event" kind of shots and that they are going to be indoors, then the next thing you should probably get is a good flash.

If its gonna be like once in a blue moon kind of deal then go with another lens..

Cant agree more then that, many have brought flash light, but seldom get to used their flash, unless they are event photographer (indoor or outdoor). If not, its not a must to get a flash light, your 300D should have a bulit in flash light, which work fine in these condition.

Play with high ASA to compensate for the low light condition. In order to get the grain out of the picture when using high ASA, use high aperture like F6 or 8.

:bsmilie: leo

 

[AReality]

Go for the lens 1st...
the 75-300mm IS USM not bad for outdoor long zooms...
dun really need to zoom that far for indoor anyway...

If U're not a heavy flash user, get the Sigma 500 DG Super.
1/2 the price of a 550EX, with same fuctions. It works excellent with the 300D.

 

[ptwong]

hmmm...ok onz....so i keep my money for the lens liao...but 75-300mm IS USM seems a little too rich...hopefully year end bonus can cover lor...big thanks to everyone for their advices

 

[mpenza]

Basically like wat shuttlefly has written, have a problem filling up my pics. I like to go into taking sports events and thus would like to have a lens with a better zoom. The kit lens is good for daily uses but not competent enough for a special event. (maybe it's just my skill ha...)Tried my boss's L series 300mm (don't know the model) found it really good and really engaging thus keen to start baby steps to building up to that.

If you're into taking sports event, the 28-135 is neither here nor there. Suggest that you get a 70-300 or 75-300. Sigma 70-300 APO Macro Super II or tamron LD 70-300 Macro would be good starter lens and one of these cost less than $350 (I think) and would do well for outdoor sports events.

 

[Snowcrash]

If you plan to shoot more outdoor sports event, go get the lens first (75-300 etc)

If you plan to shoot more indoor events like wedding, company function etc, go get a flash.

And go get a 35/f2 or 50/f1.8 for cheap low light solution.

 

[ptwong]

hmm...the prices seems nice but as i'm a new "bird" would having IS help in getting a sharper image handheld? I know having a tripod or a monopod would be better but a bit hard if need to run around.

 

[AReality]

IS give U about +2 more stops on the 75-300mm...
So for non-IS shutter speed of 1/250s, U can get it away with 1/80s.

I don't think it'll give u sharper image, coz eventually, it comes down to how steady U can hold it. It just let U make more use the of ambient lighting available. Especially when your subject is quite far away, & U're using 300mm, your flash may not be able to reach your subject.

 

[coke21]

IS give U about +2 more stops on the 75-300mm...
So for non-IS shutter speed of 1/250s, U can get it away with 1/80s.

I don't think it'll give u sharper image, coz eventually, it comes down to how steady U can hold it. It just let U make more use the of ambient lighting available. Especially when your subject is quite far away, & U're using 300mm, your flash may not be able to reach your subject.

Sorry OT a bit. Am a Nikon user.....the IS function similar to the VR in Nikon?

 

[Larry]

Sorry OT a bit. Am a Nikon user.....the IS function similar to the VR in Nikon?

yes it's similar technology. IS means Image Stabiliser.

 

[coke21]

yes it's similar technology. IS means Image Stabiliser.

Ah...thanks for the info...

 

[bigalien]

i am also encountering this accessory buying thing for 300d.. but i guess if u don't need it that badly means its not a necessity yet =)

If u are going to shoot indoors like once in a long long time then i think its better off borrowing a flash.. rather than spending 500-600 bucks on a flash that will be in a dry box for a long time.. Telephoto seems to me to be a more useful buy since the kit lens dun really have much of a range. But then again views differ .. just some comments.