canon 430 ex ii vs 600ex

Discussion in 'Photography' started by sammym, Mar 4, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Simple really. Is it worth spending the extra 140 quid on the 600ex. I wouldn't use the radio feature but like the idea of future proofing myself.

    All advice and comments considered.
     
  2. 430 is a perfectly good bit of kit, I've got one 580 and three 430s that I use with radio triggers, does the job in fine style.
     
  3. Forgive my ignorance. I have read up about some of this stuff, but know hardly anything about it. But I understand the 600ex has radio built in... and the 430 does not. How much are these radio triggers if I want to get one at a later date. I can't see myself ever using a multitude of flashes at once, however I truly do not understand the difference between what they call optical and radio. Something about having to be in sight or something, which seems daft, as if you can't see the flash how the hell can the camera...

    Sorry I'm probably being thick. I just dont get it. I was looking at a cheapy one but apparently you have to set them all up manually, and it requires many phd's to do so!
     
  4. It's a lot extra to pay if you 'might' want radio triggers one day.

    I use Pocket Wizards and got them a while back, the cost a bit but they save hours of time that I can sell to someone else.
     
  5. Right - I've decided I'm going for the 430ex ii. I got it from amazon for £195, and it shall do what I want for the forseeable future. Thanks
     
  6. Good choice.

    It also offers high-speed synch, v useful feature.
     
  7. Got my flash today - my set up is getting slightly more complete. Now got a camera a flash and one lens.

    Currently looking into getting another lens as I like the idea of having a bit more range than my 24-105, however the prices are just getting silly. To get the 70-200 f2.8 ii I like the look of it's going to be another £1500. I also like the idea of a prime lens, however I am not sure that I'd get much use out of the 50mm, as I have the zoom in that range. But I am told that the 135mm f2.0 is an amazing lens, just trying to work out if that would be any good on a cropped frame.

    Any comment?
     
  8. what body are you using and what sort of pix are you taking?
    A 135mm imho is a particularly niche lens [180mm or thereabouts on a non full-frame camera].
    For example I used to use a 28mm as a standard, with a 180mm 2.8 on the rare occasion I needed the reach - just depends on your subject matter. On the other hand I used a 105mm 1.8 for portraits outside of studio - 85mm 1.4 in studio. A 135mm on a full-frame camera would have been too tight for general use and too short for telephoto.
     
  9. I'm using a 7d. The only reason for me selecting the 135mm l lens, was that I was told it was utterly amazing in sharpness and quality, combined with a relatively modest price sum.

    I'll keep looking into it, I may well go down the 50mm route at a first prime. I know I wouldn't stretch to the 1.2 so for me it will be either a 1.4 or a 1.8.
     
  10. I went down the 60mm f2.8 macro route - 96mm on my crop-factor camera body, which is ideal for portraiture. It is a true 1:1 macro lens as well. It also gets gleaming reports even now. Cost is about the same as the 50mm f1.8.
     
  11. Gremlin

    Gremlin LE Good Egg (charities)

    The 135mm is a stunning lens, but as a couple of others have mentioned it sits more naturally on a full frame sensor. Having said that, so does the 24-105mm but I thought that it was a great all-rounder on a 7D!

    In your position I'd be looking at a second hand 70-200/f IS. It's second only to the f/2.8 mkII and can be picked up for around £750 from the likes of MPB Photographic

    If you're going for a 50mm, I'd suggest the Sigma f/1.4 rather than the Canon version. A bit more expensive, but well worth it.


    A gratuitous 135mm shot........

    [​IMG]