Collecting Pics Of Lenses. Care to Contribute?

Cesium wrote in post #12866147
That's a really cool collection. I've had 3 of the 5 and was always impressed with these early EF primes. They are so small and light that it's never a burden to throw one in the bag just in case.

You should pick up a 135mm Soft Focus to round out your 1980's arc-drive prime collection. The 15mm fisheye as well, I guess.

The 135 SF never gets talked about, i wonder if its really a bad lens

Cesium wrote in post #12866147
That's a really cool collection. I've had 3 of the 5 and was always impressed with these early EF primes. They are so small and light that it's never a burden to throw one in the bag just in case.

You should pick up a 135mm Soft Focus to round out your 1980's arc-drive prime collection. The 15mm fisheye as well, I guess.

The 15mm fisheye is actually really good. Don't lump it in with crap like the 135 SF

If you think the 135 SF is crap, it makes me wonder if you've used it. It's the smallest, lightest, sharpest lens in its range, and there is absolutely no reason to ever use the Soft Focus feature, but otherwise the lens has basically the same highly-prized optical abilities as the 85/1.8 and 100/2.

bior wrote in post #12867781
If you think the 135 SF is crap, it makes me wonder if you've used it. It's the smallest, lightest, sharpest lens in its range, and there is absolutely no reason to ever use the Soft Focus feature, but otherwise the lens has basically the same highly-prized optical abilities as the 85/1.8 and 100/2.

At $550, it's crap-overpriced. At the same price as the 85 1.8 or 100 2, I might change my tune, but that's not the case. Nope, haven't tried it, but I did read many a review prior to nearly picking one up last year. Most of the reviews gave it a mediocre rating, at best. With the iso comparisons on the-digital-picture, it's nothing spectacular. Lack of USM rounds out a fantastically unsatisfying build. As you said, soft focus effect is utterly useless, especially if you've got a soft focus filter.

The Fish 15mm is a special little number, even at its high price. I was playfully implying that they shouldn't be in the same class. No offense was intended toward any 135 SF owners

MOkoFOko wrote in post #12867816
Nope, haven't tried it

Thanks for your opinion!

bior wrote in post #12867834
Thanks for your opinion!

Sarcasm noted. I absolutely, most certainly appreciate your opinion as well. I highly favor your opinion over the many reviews and test shots I've seen with the lens. Have you owned the 85 1.8, 100 f/2, 135 SF, and the 15 Fish which have been referenced, since you've graciously shared your own opinion regarding all of them? I've owned 3 of them (my past/present gear list is in my sig), and done due diligence researching the other. If you don't like my opinion, tough noogies. I still say the 135 SF is subpar for the price.

bior wrote in post #12867781
If you think the 135 SF is crap, it makes me wonder if you've used it. It's the smallest, lightest, sharpest lens in its range, and there is absolutely no reason to ever use the Soft Focus feature, but otherwise the lens has basically the same highly-prized optical abilities as the 85/1.8 and 100/2.

Whoa whoa, I wasnt saying it was crap, its just the perception you get because nowone ever talks about it

i intended my comment to imply that it was one of the under-appreciated lenses in the Canon lineup...much like the 200mm f/2.8L which gets hardly any love despite being one of the cheapest L lenses and probubly one of the sharpest lenses in its focal length...

KenjiS wrote in post #12867924
Whoa whoa, I wasnt saying it was crap, its just the perception you get because nowone ever talks about it

i intended my comment to imply that it was one of the under-appreciated lenses in the Canon lineup...much like the 200mm f/2.8L which gets hardly any love despite being one of the cheapest L lenses and probubly one of the sharpest lenses in its focal length...

He was responding to me. I didn't expect anyone to take offense at my obvious playfulness. I must have hurt his feelings greatly. Since you refuse to say it, I'll say it--the 135 SF sucks for the price It's not a true crapper lens, but it's underwhelming for $550. I don't need a lens in my hands to read multiple thorough and concise reviews.

MOkoFOko wrote in post #12867953
He was responding to me. I didn't expect anyone to take offense at my obvious playfulness. I must have hurt his feelings greatly. Since you refuse to say it, I'll say it--the 135 SF sucks for the price It's not a true crapper lens, but it's underwhelming for $550. I don't a lens in my hands to read multiple thorough and concise reviews.

**pulls out the pee and poo can**

jdizzle wrote in post #12867974
**pulls out the pee and poo can**

**tosses the can in the trash**
**takes a new 135 Soft-Focus lens, smashes the front element, hollows it out**

Got me a new can, baby.

a_roadbiker wrote in post #12865092
My guess is that they want to show/market an affodable lens on an expensive camera. It demonstrates a couple of things...

1. you can spend money on a good body and still get great results with the non-L lens (saving money)
   
2. If you buy the non-L 50 for a non-FF body, you get the satisfaction of knowing (or thinking) that you are buying the same high quality lens that is used on a high-end body

It's all marketing and done very intentionally (and effectively).

Jim

when i pulled out my user manual of my 5D2, i felt like a boss knowing a lens that i own is featured on the official manual

also, the 50 1.4 looks really cool if you're looking straight from the front (like on the manual) but looks tiny and wimpy if you're looking at it from any other angle. maybe cause i mounted a 85L once which made any other prime look disgraceful, including the 50L that i mounted right after.

nikesupremedunk wrote in post #12867996
when i pulled out my user manual of my 5D2, i felt like a boss knowing a lens that i own is featured on the official manual

also, the 50 1.4 looks really cool if you're looking straight from the front (like on the manual) but looks tiny and wimpy if you're looking at it from any other angle. maybe cause i mounted a 85L once which made any other prime look disgraceful, including the 50L that i mounted right after.

Against my Sigma 50 1.4, my Canon 50 1.4 looks oh so tiny and sad.

MOkoFOko wrote in post #12868001
Against my Sigma 50 1.4, my Canon 50 1.4 looks oh so tiny and sad.

The Sigma is a real MANS lens....For real MANLY HANDS!

(This is intended to be a joke folks, Girls can use the Sigma just fine too )

MOkoFOko wrote in post #12868001
Against my Sigma 50 1.4, my Canon 50 1.4 looks oh so tiny and sad.

i'm sorry but sigmas don't and will never look as asthetically pleasing as canon IMO. they just look like ugly nikon lenses to me

KenjiS wrote in post #12868067
The Sigma is a real MANS lens....For real MANLY HANDS!

(This is intended to be a joke folks, Girls can use the Sigma just fine too )

lol then the super telephoto lenses must be for Ogre hands

How about the nifty fifty? I am sure it's too small even for most women.