I was wondering what is the the deal with this lens? There has been no update of this lens (as far as I know) from its version 1. No one here on CR talks about it or asks of it or mentions it!! There is not even a lens gallery for this lens on here! So no one uses/has this lens here? Just idly wondering.
What is the deal with Canon 135mm f/2.8 soft focus?
- Thread starter RAKAMRAK
- Start date
- Status
I have not used this lens, but it seems like this is a case where there is no down side to adding the soft focus in post processing. In the film days this lens created a unique look. Now, its just easier and probably better to do add the effect later.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:But just think - you could use this lens on a video dSLR and effortlessly recreate close ups of female characters from the original Star Trek series...
Shatner would surely be interested in that.
Upvote
0
RAKAMRAK said:
not really. I bought a 70-200 f2.8L is mkii and basically stopped using the 100L. so I sold it. then I saw a really good deal on the 85 and I bought it. 275 for it was simply too good of a deal for me to say no thank you to.
I miss my 100 L... so I may pick one up again.
Upvote
0
gferdinandsen
was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker
RAKAMRAK said:
Does Canon still manufacture it...I have not heard of it in years. My best guess is that the effect of the lens can be easily replicated in photoshop so it is no longer needed like it was in film days. In fact I see it on EBay from about $250 buy it now.
Upvote
0
I bought the lens on eBay for about $220 to check it out. It is sharp although pictures don't look as good as they do on my 85mm 1.8. I have occasionally found it helpful to have a telephoto prime that is compact so I plan to keep the lens. I've toyed with the soft focus feature although really haven't found a use for it so generally leave it turned off. On my crop sensor it gave me enough reach to photograph my son's little league games without the other parents thinking I am crazy to have a big white lens!
Upvote
0
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
I owned this lens for a couple of years, usual first gen build (i.e. solid) usual first gen AF (sloooooooooooooow and NOISSYYY!!!!)
Ok optically. I tended to use it with the SF dialled out. It was an effective 200mm f2.8 on my 400D (at the time) but the AF was way to slow to make it any cop as a sports lens.
I sold mine when I mistakenly thought there was internal haze (and sold it with this declared) turns out this is a quirk of the SF element.
Would I seek another out? No. Things have moved on somewhat, and I never needed the SF bit in the first place.
Ok optically. I tended to use it with the SF dialled out. It was an effective 200mm f2.8 on my 400D (at the time) but the AF was way to slow to make it any cop as a sports lens.
I sold mine when I mistakenly thought there was internal haze (and sold it with this declared) turns out this is a quirk of the SF element.
Would I seek another out? No. Things have moved on somewhat, and I never needed the SF bit in the first place.
Upvote
0
True, but without the dress and the psycho eyes, it just wouldn't be Kodos The Executioner's daughter.neuroanatomist said:But just think - you could use this lens on a video dSLR and effortlessly recreate close ups of female characters from the original Star Trek series...
Upvote
0
drmikeinpdx
Celebrating 20 years of model photography!
Neuro has a good point. If the manual focus lends itself to video techniques, it could be a very nice option for soft focus video.
I've seen this lens listed many times and wondered what on earth anyone would use it for today.
I've seen this lens listed many times and wondered what on earth anyone would use it for today.
Upvote
0
EOBeav said:
You sell your organs cheap. An average kidney should be able to yield you more that $1000!
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
