CANON EF 135mm f/2.8 w/ Soft Focus ???

[tombryan]

I was looking at lenses cause I'm going to buy a WA lens soon and I saw this lens, the 135 2.8 soft focus lens. It's only $299. Wow, that's cheap. Sounds like a great portrait lens. Does anyone use this lens or know anything about it ?? I'd like to know more and if it's worth owning.

Thanks,
Tom

[jngo]

if you like your images soft, then by all means it's a great pick up! if i recall correctly, you won't be able to get a tact sharp image, um, ever with this lens.

[chris clements]

not so- the image quality with 'soft' turned off is well up there with the conventional 135.
Only downside may be the AF speed; remember it's one of the first EF lenses.

* set me thinking ; now the 85L has been updated, is the 135 SF the oldest lens still in the line-up (weren't the 50's updated)?

[Alextian]

well. soft image you can process by photoshop. no point to buy that.

135 F2 will be better then F2.8.

[chris clements]

well. soft image you can process by photoshop
I've played around with most filters/plug-ins, but not yet found one that gives quite the same effect.
Set at halfway between 0 and 1 (2 is too strong), it gives the most flattering soft focus I've come across.

[malla1962]

well. soft image you can process by photoshop. no point to buy that.

135 F2 will be better then F2.8.No doubt but if cost is a issue?:D

[Andy_T]

135 F2 will be better then F2.8.

Well, it should, for 3 times the price :rolleyes:

I have not used that specific lens (yet), but I have researched it as a possible light tele lens. Also, I have found that ALL the Canon mid-price primes I have tried so far have great image quality (as opposed to many of the 'consumer' zooms). They are fairly cheap if you compare them to zoom lenses giving the same image quality, but if you consider that you can pick up old manual focus 135/2.8 primes well below 100$ used, price is relative.

If you don't mind using a prime, the lens wil certainly give you great images.

if you like your images soft, then by all means it's a great pick up!

Do you have hands-on experience with that lens?
In the reviews I researched, most other users who have used this lens normally rate it very positively.

On the other hand, Tom, if you are specifically asking about the 'Soft focus' functions, in most reviews I read this was not exactly rated as a 'must have' functionality, especially not in the digital world. Chris, maybe you could provide an example here?

It is normally considered a good sharp prime lens in a helpful focal length (on 35 mm film!!!) for portraits. Other than that, I don't know if it will give you much that your 70-200/2.8L won't give you.

My personal verdict was to settle for a used 80-200/2.8L (that is a great portrait lens :D) and continue to save my pennies for the 85/1.2L and 135/2.0L (which will certainly be an improvement over the L zoom lens)

Best regards,
Andy

[chris clements]

Chris, maybe you could provide an example here?

It is normally considered a good sharp prime lens in a helpful focal length (on 35 mm film!!!) for portraits.
Andy

I'll fish it out tomorrow.
As Andy says, as a straight 135 it punches at least its weight (and probably above) on the sharpness front. I accept that in the digital era you should just consider the SF facility as as a useful extra rather than a must-have.

[FlashZebra]

if you like your images soft, then by all means it's a great pick up! if i recall correctly, you won't be able to get a tact sharp image, um, ever with this lens.
Nonsense, I think you are just guessing here.

With the soft focus feature dialed out, this is a lens with "very respectable resolution".

See:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_135_28sf/index.htm

Enjoy! Lon

[chris clements]

Dashed off quickly; not too scientific, but hopefully gives a good idea
5D 100 ISO @ f3.5 no sharpening

Full frame + 100% crop at no SF & halfway between 0 and 1 SF

[chris clements]

1 and 2 SF settings

[schmoelzel]

Was able to try one briefly this past winter and came away impressed with the optics! The soft effect is not my thing but with it off, the optics do rival the 135L. If you can get one for a bargain price, I think it is a very good buy!! Here was my mini-review that I posted at the time........

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=135789

[basroil]

considering you have a 1.6 crop, and two of them to boot, ide say it's a total waste to get the soft focus. 70-200 is more useful, and 50 is sharper. for portaits, 70-200 on one body and 50 on other will give you all the coverage you need. if you don't have photoshop (which i assume 99% of people here do have), spend those 300 bucks towards photoshop. if you do portaits a lot, you might want a wider lens than the 50 that is still f2.8 or faster, the 70-200 has top range covered (right now the 70-200 is my favorite portait lens for outdoor use, 50mm for indoor use)

[In2Photos]

As usual the lens bashers come out in full force. I find it funny that guys like scmoelzel and chrisclements, who have used this lens and have proof to back it up, say how great it is for the money, but then others who have NO proof come out cracking on it saying how much better the 135L is. Where is your proof? Hopefully it isn't from the guy who thinks it always produces soft images because it has a soft focus effect.

[CyberDyneSystems]

It's a bleeding sharp lens at a great price.

Lightweight too...
the most noticeable difference between it and the f/2L are weight, AF speed, and most importantly re: IQ,. the Bokeh. Here the L has the f/2.8SF clearly beat.

If soft focus is of no concern, than also consider the equally sharp 100mm f/2 USM and 85mm f/1.8 USM, both with much faster AF abd nicer Bokeh as well. And of course both more appropriate and usefull for portraits on a 1.6 body.