Can anyone tell me about this lens? Canon 135mm f2.8 Lens Soft Focus auto focus f/2.

[PhotoMom]

I'm doing headshots, portraits mostly, and came across info on this lens. But I need to know if anyone has used it and how well it performed.

I'm really looking for the Canon 85mm 1.8 for a portrait lens, but if this lens is comparable, and will accomplish the soft focus at the same time, should I invest in that one instead?

Photomom

[dc2]

I have had this lens for quite a while now and hardly use it on my full FF camera but think its ideally suited more for soft focus flower shots than portrait shots, having said that with the soft focus turned off it an extremely sharp and good quaility lens. especially for the price compared to say a L lens .

[dougsmit]

Many people find 135mm a bit long for head shots on a 1.6x crop body and the words soft focus scare off people who fail to note that the lens is sharp when set to the sharp position. The soft 'adjustment' has two settings: "soft" and "really soft" so you may want to play around and be sure you are not getting too soft for what you intended. The look is not the same as obtained easily in postprocessing but it also lacks that zone of sharpness that many of us would like to have for the eyes so the look is not currently fashionable in some circles. I have seen the lens offered used at good enough prices that you might consider it even if you had no intention of using the soft focus features.

[JDArt]

Originally Posted by PhotoMom

I'm doing headshots, portraits mostly, and came across info on this lens. But I need to know if anyone has used it and how well it performed.

It's a nice lens--very light and inexpensive! I see no reason not to have it in the kit.

It's decent in both its soft and non-soft modes as a portrait lens on a full-frame camera. As another poster said, probably too long on a 1.6x crop.

Also, it does not have IS, which one needs at this length, IMO, for handholding at shutter speeds below 200 or so.

Using the soft focus aspect of the lens takes some practice: directions are included.

[PhotoMom]

OK<

Another question,

so how would this lens compage to the 85mm 1.8 for portraits and headshots? Will this lens be too long for headshots and portraits?

Photomom

[JDArt]

Originally Posted by PhotoMom

so how would this lens compage to the 85mm 1.8 for portraits and headshots?

The 85 is much better--better focal length and sharper, steadier. The 85 is a gem of a lens.

[PhotoMom]

Thanks to everyone who responded. I think I'll just stick to the 85mm for now. I still think I would love to have the soft focus lens, though, but don't think it's exactly what I'm after for what I'm doing. Looks like post processing will have to stay with me!

Photomom!

I love this forum, lots of knowledgeable people you can count on for advice all the time!

[JDArt]

Originally Posted by PhotoMom

I still think I would love to have the soft focus lens, though, but don't think it's exactly what I'm after for what I'm doing.

Good call. The soft focus lens is probably one that sits on the shelf for most of its life.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by PhotoMom

...I think I'll just stick to the 85mm for now...Looks like post processing will have to stay with me!

you do know that there are also 58mm soft-focus FILTERS for sale?

..and clear filters and vaseline...

FWIW, *my* €0.02...



Max@Home

[dougsmit]

While I 100% agree that the SF lens is a feature that will not be used much by most of us, the effect achieved from lack of spherical abheration correction is not the same as you get when using a diffusing filter either in front of a regular lens or applied in postprocessing. The soft effect changes the in-focus focal characteristics rather like we see promoted by fans of bokeh for their out of focus areas. There should be a sharp image surrounded by a smooth edged halo image. Some early lenses offered adjustment of this effect by adding a central disk filter that blocked the effect of the center of the lens (producing sharp) and emphasized the soft producing edges. An overall blur is just not the same. This article shows one that always seemed to considered a top performer (Leitz Thambar - now several thousand dollars used):
Shutterbug: The Leitz Thambar 90mm f/2.2

I've seen a few SF photos that I liked but the fact remains that the feature offered are not something I'm tempted to pay extra to have. That is where the Canon seems special. If anything, it seems that the lens sells for less because people fail to allow that it can be used 'sharp' and avoid the lens as if it were defective. A quick scan over the 442 images on PBase listing the lens only turned up a handful using the soft settings. None of them drove me to run out and buy one.