# Between these two lenses which one 1st EF...



## rprimeau95 (Sep 9, 2007)

I plan on getting both these lenses but which one should I get first???
Canon EF 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM or EF 28-105 mm 1:3.5-4.5 USM Macro

I am new to doing business I plan on specializing in candid baby, children, maternity artistic shots on location not in studio. I also want to do commercial shots for food, tattoos, perfume bottles etc that need close range contrast and details. I have read many reviews that state on a budget with these two lenses most focal ranges would be covered at a reasonable price. 

I currently have a job offer to do a food menu, recipe book I told the person that I may be limited with the current lenses I own and would need a better lens. She offered to get me one if I could find a good deal on ebay at the 150.00 range I know it is possible. Between these two lenses 

*Canon EF 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM *or *EF 28-105 mm 1:3.5-4.5 USM Macro* not the older version with the flower icon on it. 

I heard read that Canon has not been able to top the 100-300mm semi pro lens and this is a great lens, I also read that this is not a very fast lens but has one touch zoom w/macro focusing. I also understand that this is best for wildlife, candid shots, concerts and sports. 

As for the 28-105 I have read it is the most versatile and best performing affordable zoom lens ever made by Canon and combined with the above you would have a very awesome range. When one says a lens is versatile how does one know what this lens is best for?
Here is what I have currently have all the pics you see in my Portfolios are the my Canon w/the 18-55mm lens. 

Canon Rebel 350d-XT
Canon 50mm f/1.8 II Lens
Canon 18-55mm Lens
Digital High definition 0.5x Wide Angle Lens with Macro
_______________________________
My Online Portfolio's 

http://RLPPhotoStudio.com a few on this site were with my Fuji and Minolta  the pool shot, one of the window shots, the boy in the window with yellow, and the boy with the red shirt and lollipop otherwise all were done with my Canon and the kit lens. I think the close up of the frog on the grass was with my Canon EF 18-55mm.

http://www.pbase.com/rlpphotostudio 

anyway I am watching some auctions ending today and tomorrow please if you have any experience with the two please reply thanks


----------



## Garbz (Sep 9, 2007)

The numbers say all. 24-105mm is a nearly wide angle to moderately telephoto range. This is a great range for general purposes like street, nature, landscape, or modelling. The macro allows you to get very close to the subject too.

The other lens 100-300 can be used for pretty much only sports, bird watching, and uhh "bird" watching. At the widest angle 100mm to get a full body shot you'd need to be a long distance away. Also it will probably have a near focus point quite a long distance away.

For the purposes you mentioned (food, babies) I'd look at the 24-105 first.


----------



## EOS_JD (Sep 9, 2007)

For the work you plan on doing I'd recommend neither of these slow lenses.

Fast zooms (f2.8) or fast primes will be much better especially for candid baby, children, maternity artistic shots. To do commercial shots for food you're best with a dedicated macro lens. For tattoos, perfume bottles etc fast prime or macro will be very useful but you may need some decent lighting (and that's not cheap).

My recommendation.....

You already have the 50 f1.8.  A very decent lens.
Perhaps a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for those candid baby, children, maternity artistic.

If you need a longer lens, faster is better and the 70-200 f4L is a decent start.

The lenses you mentioned are ok but not for professional use. If you start using them you will be very limited. I started with a slow lens. Didn't take me long to find out whey I needed faster glass.


----------



## S2K1 (Sep 10, 2007)

EOS_JD has very good points. I'd look into the Tamron lenses he suggested and a dedicated macro. Lighting is always key in product photography, and shouldn't be ignored or you may not get any future jobs.
If you have to have one of those two, go with the 28-105.


----------



## rprimeau95 (Sep 10, 2007)

Thanks everyone here is what the photographer recommended when I first asked a question prior to him seeing some of my current work I have achieved with my 18-55mm.

He said


> Thank you very much for your kind comment about my eBay reviews and guides (I  hope you voted "YES" for each of them).
> 
> I promise that I will be  completely "up front" with you, as I try to be in all of my dealings and  communications.
> 
> ...


I then sent him the links to my online portfolio and asked if he would look at some of the stuff I have been doing with the lens I have minus using my  prime 50mm I think I had only used it on the pic of the frog in the grass only because I didn't know much about that lens and still don't I felt limited at the time because it doesn't zoom in and out.

He then replied with the following recommendations:


> I looked at your photos last night. Many of them look surprisingly sharp for an  EF-S 18-55mm. Some of the landscape shots look like they may have needed a lot  of Photoshop "tweaking" to bring them to life. You have a good eye for  composition and subject selection.
> 
> Now, you need to get out your 50mm  prime to see what your camera can really do. It's more work to "zoom with your  feet", but the results will really impress you. That model is an awesome  "Portrait" lens, especially on a Digital Rebel, where it becomes an 80mm  equivalent with a very large aperture. It will allow you to capture great  "natural light" indoor photos. It is also fantastic for stopping motion, (very  important with kids). This is your BEST CHOICE for shooting "skin art" and food  photos. However, proper lighting will be very important for both gigs (NO  FLASH!).
> 
> ...



So would you all agree?

I would like to point out about his comment about my landscape shots I did not have to do alot of photo shopping  I did very little matter of fact the Pictured Rocks and drift wood shots were not taken with my Canon they were with my [FONT=Arial, Verdana]Fuji FinePix A303 3.2 Megapix The rest were with my Canon the barn and hay field I used hue map to brighten up a bit then used hue 25, saturation 18 lightness 0. The rest were just color saturation [/FONT]as for the other shots the barn, hay fields I just used the hue/saturation  and that is it to give them that sepia tone. My water shots were again were 
[FONT=Arial, Verdana]
I looked in my box of camera stuff last night & guess what I found a Digital High Definition 0.5x Wide Angle Lens with Macro is this something useful? I put it on my 18-55mm not sure what it does? Can I couple this with another lens to achieve more macro?[/FONT]


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 10, 2007)

I agree with most of that this person is saying...except for avoiding EF-S lenses.  That would be smart if you are going to upgrade to a full frame DSLR like the 5D or 1Ds mk III...but either of those are very very expensive.

I agree with EOS JD, try your best to get 'fast' lenses.  F2.8 for a zoom etc.  Otherwise, you will find that you need to upgrade before you know it.  The Tamron 17-50 F2.8 is fairly affordable for the quality of lens that you get.

Since you are trying to run a business...it would be a good investment to purchase good (or top) quality lenses.  Think of it as a start up cost.  A restaurant has to buy all of it's cooking appliances before it can serve it's first customer...then they work to pay off that cost...but good quality equipment should last much longer than it takes to pay off.  Think of lenses the same way, buy the best you can get...work hard to pay them off and then you are all set.

Also, high quality lenses are great in that they hold their value very well.  So if you spent $1000 on a lens, and used it for a few years.  You could probably still sell it for $900.


----------



## rprimeau95 (Sep 10, 2007)

Big Mike said:


> I agree with most of that this person is saying...except for avoiding EF-S lenses.  That would be smart if you are going to upgrade to a full frame DSLR like the 5D or 1Ds mk III...but either of those are very very expensive.
> 
> I agree with EOS JD, try your best to get 'fast' lenses.  F2.8 for a zoom etc.  Otherwise, you will find that you need to upgrade before you know it.  The Tamron 17-50 F2.8 is fairly affordable for the quality of lens that you get.
> 
> ...




When I called BH about the EF 70-210 lens they have for sale used  I asked about the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 and he said if I have the EFs 18-55mm lens why would I want the other they are basically the same except it is a bit faster so he said why would I want another lens that is the basically the same as the one I already have.


----------



## S2K1 (Sep 10, 2007)

It's actually quite a bit faster and sharper(I've had both). At 55mm, the EF-S lens is at an aperture of 5.6, while at 50mm, the Tamron is at f/2.8. Enough difference to change your shutter speed a good bit and not to mention your DOF. In terms of focal length, it is nearly identical, but that's about it.


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 10, 2007)

If a person didn't already know why the 17-50 F2.8 Tamron lens was different than the 18-55 Canon lens...then I agree, no reason to upgrade.  But if you need a larger aperture (especially at the long end) then it's a very worthwhile upgrade.  The build quality and image quality is also better with the Tamron.

The 70-210 is a older lens, that's why they only have it used.  The new version is 70-200mm and it comes in 4 'flavors'.  F4, F2.8, F4 IS and F2.8 IS.  All four are Canon *L* lenses...which signifies that they are top of the line.


----------

