Flash Me...

[Marcus]

Think I need a flash unit before buying a 70-300 lens for my 400D, does anything compare to the Canon 430ex unit? Or do I need to spend the money and get a 430ex?

Opinions please :D

[IanB20]

http://i964.photobucket.com/albums/ae122/IanB18/SEAMAN.jpg

[Tweedie]

430 ex II ??

[Mike H]

I think I've got the 430ex. It's a cracking little unit mate.

Which 70-300 are you getting? I've got the Sigma one, it's got a macro setting on it too. Superb lens and excellent value for cash. Not sure why you'd need one before that though? My flash gun came last.

[Jaffa]

300mm lenses are for losers unless you're getting an f/2.8 or better.

Tamron are wank.

Sigma are a little less wank, but still wank.

[Mike H]

Sorry, all hail Jaffa.

Have you owned a sigma 70-300?

[Jaffa]

Sorry, all hail Jaffa.

Have you owned a sigma 70-300?

No, but someone at work has a Sigma 70-300 and it's crap. The image quality is terrible, very cheap glass and the macro function does work but because at full zoom it's f/5.6 you get a crap shutter speed and fuck loads of camera shake.

[Mike H]

No

Thought not.

Some of my best images have come with the macro function. Unless you think you're David Bailey, then the 70-300 represents excellent value for money. The shutter speed isn't really that big a deal, is it.

[Marcus]

I think I've got the 430ex. It's a cracking little unit mate.

Which 70-300 are you getting? I've got the Sigma one, it's got a macro setting on it too. Superb lens and excellent value for cash. Not sure why you'd need one before that though? My flash gun came last.

Be the sigma one as well fella when I have the available funds 8)

I have been researching elsewhere and chatting to dead Sy and he reckons stick with Canon for the flash unit and whatever Sy's says is correct :pmsl:

[Jaffa]

then the 70-300 represents excellent value for money.

Yes value for money.

That being it's a very cheap lens and it's a very poor lens.