EF135 f/2.8 softfocus any experience

[HKFEVER]

Anyone have experience with this softfocus len?

[HKFEVER]

I guess nobody can help out:confused:

[Barb42]

I have one but since I have a 10D, its not used much (the 1.6 thing). I prefer my 50 1.4 or 28-135 most of the time. The soft focus can be done easily with Photoshop, so unless its a real want, not sure its a great buy, although its pretty cheap as lenses go. I do plan to spend more time on it this next year - I hate not being comfortable with the lenses in my bag.

[davidwegs]

Have it and use it on occasion. Its fine for most things, a tad softer than the F2 L series.

I got it to try the soft focus on a bride at the alter. It has two settings for this 1 and 2. I find the #2 setting too soft, but #1 is about as I like it.

Not a lens thats in great demand, but I like it for some stuff.

I'll post a link to a shot I used it for in a while.

[davidwegs]

Ok here is shot in a very dark night club type place, I used flash and this is not soft focused.

http://www.pbase.com/davidwegs/image/37711785

and this is a crop (100%) of that image.

http://www.pbase.com/davidwegs/image/37711786

Great sharpness and very useful for the right situation.

BTW, this is at 800 iso. and the lens is a pain to focus with AF if it has to hunt. I use it with MF which is excellent. Highly underrated lens.

[snibbetsj]

I've often wondered why anyone would get a lens that deliberately soft-focused. Can someone tell me? (Serious question BTW).

Jeff

[DocFrankenstein]

I've often wondered why anyone would get a lens that deliberately soft-focused. Can someone tell me? (Serious question BTW).

Jeff
Some weird portrait effect I think...

[nosquare2003]

I've often wondered why anyone would get a lens that deliberately soft-focused. Can someone tell me? (Serious question BTW).

Jeff

Reasons:
- to hide the defects of the subjects in portrait;
- to bring some "dreamy" effects

The soft focus option is controlled by a ring and can be adjusted "half-way" from soft focus 1, 2. I like the soft focus effects from lens rather than by Photoshop (I may be biased because I'm lazy to do Photoshop adjustment.)

The 135/2.8 is soft compared to 135/2L but it's good enough for my use. And it's a small and lightweighted lens for street photography. One important thing is that it's cheap!

[msvadi]

I've often wondered why anyone would get a lens that deliberately soft-focused. Can someone tell me? (Serious question BTW).

JeffThe soft focus feature can be turned off, then it's like a regular lens, and it's the least expensive way to get telephoto with f/2.8.

The soft focus, by the way, is a very nice feature, if you like this stuff. Some examples:

http://img.photosight.ru/2004/06/08/514796.jpg

http://img.photosight.ru/2004/05/17/491824.jpg

http://img.photosight.ru/2004/04/21/467097.jpg

[snibbetsj]

Thank you for the info nosquare2003 and msvadi (BTW you're 3rd shot is incredible IMHO). I didn't know it could be turned on/mild/off. I may look into this lens. Apparently produces wonderful images. :D

Thanks,
Jeff

[s8langwo]

I purchased one of these the day after Christmas 2006. I like my results wide open in low light. Stopped down to 5.6 through 11 inside with studio lighting the results are excellent.

I picked it up for a low cost longer prime. It has exceeded my expectations and I am very pleased!

[Steiglitz]

I never had that lens, but I wonder how relevent a soft-focus lens is in the digital arena.

I prefer to have a sharp lens, because I have the option to add selective blur to a portrait in post processing...it takes little time. I realize one can turn off the soft focus effect via a swith on the lens barrel but in this age of PS, I question the need for such a lens. Perhaps if one already has a 100mm or 135L or 85mm, then the purchase of the 135 soft-focus would be a waste...but if one has no lens in those focal lengths, then maybe it would make sense. I will say that I have heard only good things regarding the 135 soft-focus.