Canon 135mm f/2.8 with Softfocus?

[Sikario]

I've been trying to choose a telephoto lens for what feels like a few millennia now and I'm still undecided. Next on the "should I or shouldn't I" list is the Canon 135mm f/2.8 with Softfocus. BTW I haven't the money to buy the 135mm f/2L :(.

What is this lens like; I doubt I'll be using the softfocus much so how does it perform without it? How would it compare to shots taken with the Canon 70-200mm f/4L and the Sigma 70-300mm APO II DG (which is similarly priced)? I have a 20D.

What are the pros and cons of this lens? I've never owned a telephoto before, will I become frustrated with no zoom, I'll be using the lens predominately for family/holiday shots.

Thank for reading :)

[Sikario]

Anybody? :(

[Dante King]

This lens is great and lots of fun. Soft focus can be turned up down or off as you night know. I borrowed a buddies and had it for almost a month before he threatened me with my life If I didnt give it back. For the $$$ this lens is great IMHO.

This lens is not L glass. It is smallish and light. I have the 135L and its a beautiful chunck of glass. 135 soft is about 600 bucks cheaper. Yes no zoom, but zoom with your feet. I love the primes as they tend to be quicker and sharper.

What other lenses do you have? Is this mainly for portrait work where the special abilities of this lens are needed?

[condyk]

For the $$$ this lens is great IMHO.

I agree ... a much under-rated lens. Just turn the soft focus off and it's a well priced, top quality prime.

[etaf]

i only ever used the softfocus once as a test, otherwise it used with the soft focus off. I use it on a film camera as a great portrait lens, however, what camera are you intending to use it on as the crop factor will have an effect.

[cmM]

i've seen some nice results with this lens (don't personally own it). One of the forum members had it a long time ago (msvadi I think, I don't know if he posts here anymore)

[rdenney]

What is this lens like; I doubt I'll be using the softfocus much so how does it perform without it? How would it compare to shots taken with the Canon 70-200mm f/4L and the Sigma 70-300mm APO II DG (which is similarly priced)? I have a 20D.


Here's a thread discussing the soft-focus effect, which I personally do not like:

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=69086

The bokeh of the lens is not that great for a lens devoted to portraiture a this one claims to be. Here's my bokeh article where I compared this lens to a bunch of others in this focal range, including the 70-200/4L.

http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm

Also, the focus is slow and noisy.

If you can afford the 70-200/4L, it's better in every way.

Rick "who owns it but who isn't that impressed by it" Denney

[TheObiJuan]

I had this lens and the 135L. Both lenses are sharp, the 135L is softer, but the SF lens is as sharp at f/5.6.
The color and contrast on the L is better. CA is more obvious on the L though.
The SF lens on a 20D is hardly noticeable, but the 135L balances well.

If you have the money, spring for the 135L, if not get the SF, you wont be let down.

[Sikario]

Thanks for the replies :)

rdenney - I found your article via google yesterday (great read BTW) and from the results I thought the 135mm SF didn't do too badly, expecially considering the price (£165). I would prefer to have the 70-200mm f/4L but I'd have to go without food for a few weeks to afford it.

I suppose the more realistic comparison for me would be between the Sigma 70-300mm APO II DG because it's in the same price range, I'm not sure I really need 300mm anyway. At 135mm how would the Sigma compare to the Canon SF?

I doubt I'd ever need to use the soft focus effect, but with it off it appears to be a bargain telephoto prime lens. I'd be using it as a telephoto lens, as I'd most likely use a Tamron 28-75mm and 50mm f/1.8 for portraits.

[rdenney]

I doubt I'd ever need to use the soft focus effect, but with it off it appears to be a bargain telephoto prime lens. I'd be using it as a telephoto lens, as I'd most likely use a Tamron 28-75mm and 50mm f/1.8 for portraits.

It's fine as an inexpensive telephoto prime. Just don't expect it to be anything special because of the soft focus.

I can't compare it to the Sigma, because I don't have the latter. I would think handling and ergonomics would be most important here--I returned the Canon 75-300 USM lens that I tried because it was impossible to hold it properly. The 135 is a little light but at least can be braced against poles and the like. 165 pounds sounds just a tad rich. I paid 195 dollars for mine out of the used bin at Glazers in Seattle, and they are not known to be particularly cheap, and I feel like I paid too much for it. I'd rather see you save up for the zoom. If you just want to scratch an itch at that focal length while saving for a good zoom, there are a number of screw-mount 135's that are a fraction of the price and easily adapted to the Canon. And some of them are better than the Canon lens, even if you do have to focus them yourself.

Rick "thinking that if you had the 70-200/4L, you'd use it for portraits, too" Denney

[soupdragon]

The other alternative is the 18-55 kit lens:D