Why not IS primes?

[tasty donuts]

hi joe,

glad you liked those shots. my two family pics aren't great photography or anything, just a couple examples of decent people snapshots with bounce flash.

What's the difference in abilities (and size) of the three
different flashes you showed (550, 420, and $100)?

the 550EX is the mack daddy of EOS flashes. it's the most powerful, has the most control, can control multiple slave flashes (useful for makeshift studio setups), etc. the 420EX and lower models have no manual control, they are fully automatic E-TTL flashes. in the Canon line, only the 420 and 550 have swivel heads, which i think is an absolute requirement for an external flash. don't bother with anything that doesn't swivel, unless you are using a flash bracket (which i doubt since you like small size). my friend's cheapo flash does swivel, but i'm not even sure it's E-TTL... i think it is really basic. it is really hit or miss, works ok in a controlled environment like that cat shot but not good for general shooting. i don't recommend anything except the Canon 420EX and 550EX Speedlites.

Ulysses has already made a lot of good points and i'll just add my two cents from personal experience. the 420EX is a good flash and i have one. i've also used the 550EX, which i returned because i got a great deal on the 420EX used, but to be honest i think the extra $150 or so over the 420EX is money well spent. it really is a much better flash unit IMHO... not just more power, but more consistent exposures, more even lighting, more control, etc. the 550EX really has the ability to fill a room with light where the 420EX might still leave some shadows. i also feel like the color temperature on the 550 is more consistent ... somehow the 420EX tends to be cooler. the 550EX gives a more natural, more pleasing light; both are meant to be "sunlight-balanced" in terms of color temperature but i get the feeling the 550EX comes much closer to sunlight.

what i do like about the 420EX is it is a bit smaller and lighter, which is a big deal when it's sitting on top of an already heavy 10D setup, and it fits in the bag easier. while not being as good as the 550EX i'd say it gives you maybe 70% of the quality for about half the price. not a bad deal, and a good starter flash. after using it for a few months though i'm looking to upgrade to a 550EX (maybe on the used market) when i have a chance, and use the 420EX as a slave flash... esp. if you are doing anything creative the manual controls of the 550 are an absolute must. it is a pain having to do flash compensation solely thru ETTL metering all the time.

 

[Ulysses]

the 550EX is the mack daddy of EOS flashes.

Heheh... I like that. Mind if I quote you with this one, if someone asks a question about flash?

only the 420 and 550 have swivel heads, which i think
is an absolute requirement for an external flash. don't bother with
anything that doesn't swivel

Most definitely concur!

a great deal on the 420EX used, but to be honest i think the extra
$150 or so over the 420EX is money well spent. it really is a much
better flash unit IMHO... not just more power, but more consistent

You know, I've come to find over time that even in the face of the initial whincing when preparing to spend a bundle on a lens or a flash or whatever, the relief is almost palpable when you start seeing the results that you were trying to achieve all along. And you forget all about the pain of what it cost you. Usually.

the manual controls of the 550 are an absolute must. it is a pain
having to do flash compensation solely thru ETTL metering all the time.

Gotta be honest with you, at least for now I prefer working in E-TTL, even in the studio situation. I was working with manual mode the other day, wrestling with it really. Got fed up and switched back to E-TTL and.... ahhhhhh... happy again. I think E-TTL just has to be understood or a "feel" has to be obtained for it. I'm still getting there, but I'm having somewhat less trouble than some folks have complained about.



--

Ulysses

 

[tasty donuts]

Heheh... I like that. Mind if I quote you with this one, if someone
asks a question about flash?

sure, be my guest.

You know, I've come to find over time that even in the face of the
initial whincing when preparing to spend a bundle on a lens or a
flash or whatever, the relief is almost palpable when you start
seeing the results that you were trying to achieve all along. And
you forget all about the pain of what it cost you. Usually.

absolutely. when it comes to gear, i always try to avoid cheaping out. it's just not worth it in the long term. you get what you pay for (usually).

Gotta be honest with you, at least for now I prefer working in
E-TTL, even in the studio situation. I was working with manual mode
the other day, wrestling with it really. Got fed up and switched
back to E-TTL and.... ahhhhhh... happy again.

don't get me wrong, E-TTL is a godsend... it does an amazingly good job in a great majority of situations. but there are times (relatively rare i admit) where you are trying to achieve a certain effect, and E-TTL just won't cooperate, esp. with the lack of good spot metering on the 10D. in situations like those i really wish i had manual control. but yeah, once you get the hang of E-TTL it is actually quite flexible. i need to go back to using the AE lock/preflash button again... it's just a little hit or miss when you have a limited range of midtones at your disposal to sample.

 

[Ulysses]

don't get me wrong, E-TTL is a godsend...

Oh, and don't get ME wrong either.

I've had E-TTL mess me up a number of times. Royally! Fortunately, I shot enough to recover my way out of a few bad ones. [whew!]

--

Ulysses

 

[Jim Fels]

the 550EX is the mack daddy of EOS flashes.

Heheh... I like that. Mind if I quote you with this one, if someone
asks a question about flash?

only the 420 and 550 have swivel heads, which i think
is an absolute requirement for an external flash. don't bother with
anything that doesn't swivel

Most definitely concur!

a great deal on the 420EX used, but to be honest i think the extra
$150 or so over the 420EX is money well spent. it really is a much
better flash unit IMHO... not just more power, but more consistent

You know, I've come to find over time that even in the face of the
initial whincing when preparing to spend a bundle on a lens or a
flash or whatever, the relief is almost palpable when you start
seeing the results that you were trying to achieve all along. And
you forget all about the pain of what it cost you. Usually.

the manual controls of the 550 are an absolute must. it is a pain
having to do flash compensation solely thru ETTL metering all the time.

Gotta be honest with you, at least for now I prefer working in
E-TTL, even in the studio situation. I was working with manual mode
the other day, wrestling with it really. Got fed up and switched
back to E-TTL and.... ahhhhhh... happy again. I think E-TTL just
has to be understood or a "feel" has to be obtained for it. I'm
still getting there, but I'm having somewhat less trouble than some
folks have complained about.



--

Ulysses

--
U
Wonderful portrait.
Jim

 

[[email protected]]

Everything comes with a price.

IS is more expensive and perhaps less reliable, with all
those extra parts.

maljo

 

[Steve Grodin]

I would like Canon to make the 24-70L, 17-40L, and 16-35L with IS.

 

[Arglebargle]

I love my 50mm f 1.4, but I'd love it a lot more if it had IS. I
mean, the 28-135 IS is only considered a truly useful lens because
of the IS, no? Optically, while good, it's nothing great, but the
IS turns good into great.

If you're taking lots of handheld low light shots, there is no
substitute for IS -- not even opening wider since that will often
make the DOF too shallow.

I don't see how image quality would be degraded, either. You could
turn off the IS to "lock" then glass for a sharper image, but I saw
no difference with my 28-135 on or off IS (so I just use IS all the
time now). Regardless, I imagine prime lenses to be much simpler
than zooms, so the IS implementation should be simpler.

Of course, an IS camera is a "better" solution (although it's
interesting to wonder if an IS lens on an IS camera would be even
more effective -- not that the amount of tolerated shake would
improve, but the effectiveness at combatting the same amount of
shake).

So, what are the arguments against it?

--
--joe

300D -- awesome. Please petition Canon make me a 20-100 f 4L IS
-- and while they're at it, throw in a 50mm f 1.4 IS that focuses
at three inches as well!

Visit my rock store at http://www.saimport.com !

: )

 

[TangoMan]

Petteri, in the bizarro world that I live in, I keep hoping that
Canon comes out with an EF 50mm f/1.2L with ring USM, and that they
make exactly TWO of them, one for me and one for you. Heheh...

Make it three