Canon 135mm f2.8 softfocus

A

apkent

Suspended / Banned
Messages
693
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

Interested in the above lens and wondered if anyone has used this version specifically (rather than the much more expensive L version for example).

I've read a few reviews which say the IQ is excellent, and others that it can be a little 'wayward' at times, even with the softfocus feature turned off.

I'm not at all bothered about having the softfocus feature, just don't really want to spend £900 when £350 will get 90% of the result.

So, anyone with any experience?

Cheers,
Andy
 
thing is, in my opinion the 10% extra result is worth the extra cash.

can't comment specifically on that lens as i have the 135 f/2 but i think the focal length is ideal for outdoor portraits and has a great working distance so you're not too in your face.

based on the crops at the digital picture, the 135 f/2 is significantly sharper at f2.8 and sharper at every other aperture as far as i can see.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

i've found the reviews on the digital picture to be very impartial and accurate - certainly they ring true with every lens i've used or owned.

the review is here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.8-with-Softfocus-Lens-Review.aspx
 
Thanks. That was the very first review I came to, though I didn't manage to spot the lens comparison - quite a difference and easily enough to put me off! I'm so glad you took the time to post them!!!

A quick re-think is in order then.........
 
The only reason to buy that lens is for the softfocus feature. And TBH it's quite limited at that too, only being really effective at f/2.8 and f/4. I gave it up and use a SF filter instead.

Apart from that, it's a fairly simple (and old) design, nothing special optically, and basic in terms of build etc. Maybe the 100mm f/2, or 100mm f/2.8 macro? The main thing about the lovely 135L is that it's f/2.

Most people go for zooms around that focal length, and they usually have IS too.
 
I had this lens for use with my Canon EOS 650 film camera - it is an old design! I rarely used it, finding the AF slow and noisy.
 
Reason I asked is that I'm at a bit of a crossroads in my head.

I want a longer prime portrait lens to compliment my 24-70. An 85mm would be a waste since it's so close to 70mm (however stunning it is optically) and 100mm isn't all that far away either. I figured that 135mm could be better and would sit better in my range.

At the top end I'm covered above 200mm.

I'm beginning to think that maybe I would be better off with a 100mm of some sort though.........decisions, decisions!
 
HoppyUK said:
The only reason to buy that lens is for the softfocus feature. And TBH it's quite limited at that too, only being really effective at f/2.8 and f/4. I gave it up and use a SF filter instead.

Apart from that, it's a fairly simple (and old) design, nothing special optically, and basic in terms of build etc. Maybe the 100mm f/2, or 100mm f/2.8 macro? The main thing about the lovely 135L is that it's f/2.

Most people go for zooms around that focal length, and they usually have IS too.
Click to expand...
This is an old lens that the write up said the periphery of the lens is made deliberately soft to give a soft focus effect. Only Fuji and Mamiya made a true soft focus lens with a metal insert inside the lens. Maybe they had a patent on it, leaving Canon out in the cold.
 
classcams said:
This is an old lens that the write up said the periphery of the lens is made deliberately soft to give a soft focus effect. Only Fuji and Mamiya made a true soft focus lens with a metal insert inside the lens. Maybe they had a patent on it, leaving Canon out in the cold.
Click to expand...
Here is a shot of same


 
its a bit pap tbh, if you're skint put the money to a 70-200/2.8L as its sharper and goes between 70 and 200, the 135L is on my want list but my SF was not nice and was sold
 
apkent said:
Prefer primes if I'm honest. Either way, will just have to scrape together some extra cash, no way I'm going to be buying this now!
Click to expand...

Primes are wonderful for sure, but so are zooms and they are so much more versatile. I bought a few primes because, well because you do, but I never used them! All gone now.

I would like a 135L 2 for sure, but that's just for one thing - shallow depth of field and big bokeh portraits at f/2. Lovely. But that's it.

Primes these days are for low f/numbers really, except at extremes of focal length. L grade zooms are as sharp as primes, and often sharper - no optical downsides, just size/weight/cost. And you get the option of IS :thumbs:
 
Please don't tempt me! I know how well those Ls hold their money from experience.....just can't face tying up a whole load of cash again hehe!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top