135 softfocus verdict

What's the consensus here on the softfocus?

The Digital Picture gives it a so-so review.

I went through that - the price seems good to me (I can get one at a better than usual price). I was just wondering if anyone had experience or knowledge of it in real life.

I used one of these a few years ago, but at the time it was too long for me, on a crop body, plus, I already had the 70-200 F/4L and could use the money better for something else, at the time anyway.

It actually is one of the underrated gems. It is quite, if not very good, even more so considering the price. Despite the looks, it is very sturdy, even if not as sturdy as the 135L (but that is in a different price league).

Here is a pretty good review: http://www.prime-junta.net …n_135_2.8_Soft_​Focus.html

The SF-ring is hard to learn, because a little goes a long way, and IMO, you don't really need the settings beyond +1. Despite people saying that the effect can be created in PP, to be very honest, it just looks different. A true SF-lens liek this one does a better job than PP. And you can still use it as a perfectly normal 135 mm at a maximum aperture that used to be considered fast when it did appear on the market, and it still is, really. F/2, as for the 135L, or faster is, for a 135 extremely fast (and accordingly expensive).

Kind regards, Wim

"Meh." I prefer the L... It's cheap enough, for an L - and really delivers the goods.

Double Negative wrote in post #7834094
"Meh." I prefer the L... It's cheap enough, for an L - and really delivers the goods.

I agree with you, but it still is 3X as expensive, if not more .

Kind regards, Wim

It's not £100...

Ef 135/2.8 SF is a great lens. Even if you never use the SF feature. Used about $200.

I like mine, and find that it produces really nice, sharp images, pretty much all the way down to f/2.8. Even without the SF feature (which can't completely be duplicated in PS, by the way), it's a nice little lens. You can find them on the used market for about 2/3 the price of a new one. If that focal length suits you, and you're not nuts about the price of the L lens, then I'd definitely recommend it.

I'm figuring some marketing guy at Canon asked, "What can we do with our everybody's-got-one 135/2.8 to jazz it up?"

The engineer (probably Dilbert) says, "Well, we could put a control on it that will reposition one element to ruing the spherical aberration correction. That will provide a soft-focus result."

The marketing guy went with it.

I personally don't like the effect. It's nothing like the classic soft-focus Zeiss Softar effect, and three minutes with Gaussian blur on an adjustment layer can do much better. Of course, the lens predates digital photography by some years.

Here's what I wrote about it a few years ago, with an example:

https://photography-on-the.net ….php?p=508696&p​ostcount=7

There have been zillions of 135mm lenses made for small-format cameras. This was the standard moderate telephoto accessory lens that everyone bought to go with their 50 and their 28mm lenses for their Pentax Spotmatic or Canon FTb. Most of them are competent and some are really excellent. The Canon is...one of them.

Mine is now showing a bit of haziness on an interior element and needs to be serviced, but the flat rate for servicing it is a high percentage of what it's worth so it's gone on the shelf.

Rick "who prefers the look of the old cheapie Zeiss Jena 135/3.5, despite not having auto focus or aperture" Denney

The softfocus effect isn't for everybody, and I must admit that I rarely use it. I bought the lens as a much cheaper alternative to the L glass, and have been perfectly happy with the results for the money I paid. I still maintain that the SF effect isn't completely reproducible in PS though. The sample images are close, but the lens-generated one is a nicer image to my eye.

I like mine. It really is a good lens. Sharp wide open even. It's compact and uses cheap 52mm filters. The hood fits a whole bunch of other lenses. It is internal focus so nothing moves on the outside.

I use the soft focus effect sometimes in nature photography. You can create something like it in Photoshop but that takes time and more practice compared to doing in camera.

The main drawback is that the 135/2.8SF doesn't focus very close. However you can add an extension tube or close-up filter to correct that when needed.

macroimage wrote in post #7835411
You can create something like it in Photoshop but that takes time and more practice compared to doing in camera.

While I recognize that the effect will be subjectively evaluated, I do disagree that it takes more time and practice in Photoshop than in the camera. One of the problems I had wiht the lens was that the effect could not be evaluated very well either on the ground glass or on the LCD. Considering there are two soft-focus levels (in addition to "none"), and considering that the effect varies substantially over the range of f-stops, there is a continuous range of effect that would require considerable experience to learn, and it must be learned if the viewfinder or LCD can't be trusted to represent it properly. I found that the viewfinder and the LCD both grossly under-represented the effect, especially on the image details.

In contrast to that, make a duplicate layer, apply a Gaussian blur with a 100-pixel radius (play with that value until it looks right), and then play with the transparency of that layer until it looks right. That takes about 30 seconds tops, and the result can be seen large on the color-corrected computer monitor. It can also be turned off.

I prefer the effect in Photoshop, but as I said, that's a subjective evaluation. Neither is a true replacement for the ultimate soft-focus effect provided by a Zeiss Softar filter, but the PS approach comes closer.

Rick "it isn't always easier to do things in the camera" Denney

I'd love to see...

I'd love to see examples shot with the SF lens at different settings against examples shot using the various soft-focus filters and examples shot using photoshop.

I do often like a glowing soft-focus effect, especially in portraits of females. Of course, why pay two hundred bucks for this lens if you can achieve as nice an effect with filters or photoshop.

You are right Rick. Neither the viewfinder or LCD show you the effect to much of a degree. I usually shoot a few at different SF settings and apertures and wait to get back to the computer to see what I captured. Sometimes it is very pleasing, sometimes way overdone, sometimes not enough but the fun is in the surprise.