Questions for 135/2.8 Users

I have a couple of questions for anyone using the 135/2.8 Canon lens.

I realize that you can get sharp pictures if the soft focus feature is set to "zero." Is there a way for the user to lock this in place so that it can't move off of that setting inadvertently? If not, would a piece of tape on the lens barrel do the job?

What are your impressions of the lens overall? What I have found out so far from searching the board is that it is sharp, though not "L" sharp, when it's not in soft focus mode. Also, it's not that smooth in focusing (lacking an USM), but will get you there. It's shorter, half the weight, and less than a third of the price of the 135/2L.

Thanks.

Mike H

You have to press (more exactly pull) the switch and simultaneously turn the soft focus selection (ring) so as to select the soft focus settings. In other words, it is locked in place and will not move freely. (I hope you understand my poor English.)

I like this lens.

Yes, I understand! That's just what I was trying to find out. Thanks. - Mike H

don't worry about that, there is no way this can happen

What are your impressions of the lens overall? What I have found out so far from searching the board is that it is sharp, though not "L" sharp, when it's not in soft focus mode. Also, it's not that smooth in focusing (lacking an USM), but will get you there. It's shorter, half the weight, and less than a third of the price of the 135/2L.

I'm very happy with this lens, and, by the way, soft focus is a nice feature:
https://photography-on-the.net …topic.php?p=225​321#225321
But, I'm also aware of this lens weak sides.

I think this lens is the least expensive telephoto (100+) that gives you f/2.8. That's was the main reason I bought it. I actually like the soft focus feature too. I'm still sure it's not that easily reproduced in photoshop, however, I could not prove it here (there was a thread regarding soft focus about a month ago).

If you are looking for ultimate sharpness, you can probably find something better for not much more money. 85 f/1.8, for example.

Sometime ago I borrowed 75-300 III USM lens from a friend to compare with 135. I put 75-300 at 135mm and set apereture to 5.6 on both lenses. I could not see much difference. I think that 75-300 was even better in terms of the sharpness off center. But, of course, one cannot set 75-300 to f/2.8 May be I have a "soft" copy, or may be my friend has a very good copy of 75-300, I don't know. However, photodo.com MTFs confirm what I see in practice.

Anyway, if you decide to buy this lens, make sure you buy it for the right reason.

I have not used a 75-300III but I doubt that it is a better lens than 135/2.8. What do you see in the photodo.com?

The focal length of 85/1.8 vs 135/2.8 differs a lot!

Thanks for the replies.

I am interested in the lens since it would give me a small, lightweight lens that I can stick into the camera bag when I need something significantly longer than the 85/1.8 (which I use frequently) without having to load up my 70-200/4L. The latter is pretty bulky, and even means using a bigger camera bag!

I'm also looking for an extra stop to get a little more background blur and an extra step on the shutter speed. With the 135/2.8, I may even get a little more than one step because it's shorter and much lighter than the 70-200, and consequently, easier to hand hold.

The other alternative that I am considering is the 135/2L, which has gotten sparkling reviews. Again, thanks!

Mike H

135 2.0L is a totally different category of lenses. it has reputation of being one of the sharpest lenses. I doubt it's right to compare it with 2.8. anyway, 135 2.8 is compact and light. AF is kind of slow and noisy (it's an old lens, I think it was designed around 1988).

if you decide to go with it, don't forget to report here your impressions.