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.

[PhotoMom]

Well, now I really feel stupid!!!!!!!!! The thought of a soft focus FILTER never crossed my mind!

Thanks, guys, think I'll check into it! Gotta get that 85mm first though. I really need one of those for my portraits. THat's what my main interest is.

Photomom

[PavelOlavich]

Originally Posted by PhotoMom

Well, now I really feel stupid!!!!!!!!! The thought of a soft focus FILTER never crossed my mind!

Thanks, guys, think I'll check into it! Gotta get that 85mm first though. I really need one of those for my portraits. THat's what my main interest is.

Photomom

Leave the soft focus filters, and SF lenses to the film set.

For DSLR users, better to use a conventional sharp lens, and do selective softening in post processing...that way it's not all or nothing, and you have the control, not the lens, and not the filter, which apply their effet to the entire photo, which often is not beneficial...leave those to the filmers.

[PhotoMom]

Thanks, Pavel,

That makes a lot of sense now that I think about it. I really would rather have total control of the softening process!!

I appreciate all your help.

Photomom

[PavelOlavich]

Originally Posted by PhotoMom

Thanks, Pavel,

That makes a lot of sense now that I think about it. I really would rather have total control of the softening process!!

I appreciate all your help.

Photomom

You're welcome

[jpiano]

[i] I own the 85mm f1.8 , the 135mm f2.8 soft focus and the 100mm f2.8 macro. The 85 is by far the best choice for portraits because of the f1.8 aperature which makes for great bokeh, especially on my 5D. The other two lenses also make great portrait lenses, but are a bit long for my 1.6 format camera. The soft focus feature is great when it works, but the effect is very unpredictable. It only works at f2,8-f4. Stop the lens down any further and there is no soft focus effect. It seems to work best for me when I use it for back lighted subjects. If I had to use it on a film camera, I probably wouldn't ever try to use the soft focus feature, but on a DSLR, I can experiment and chimp till I get the result I like. All things considered, I rarely carry this lens with me unless I have an urge to experiment. When shooting a wedding, I don't have time to mess with an unpredictable outcome, so I don't use it much. If things slow down and I'm able to experiment during the reception, I might try a few shots using the soft focus and sometimes I get lucky (I mean, I get a good photo). Still, for the money, I'm glad I have it and it makes a great, light weight, sharp 216mm telephoto on my XTi, which is an easy to carry combination for soccer games etc. Much easier to lug around than my 5D with the 70-200mm f2.8 IS lens which has the same approx. field of view.

[Forrest]

It sounds like you're talking about the f/2.8 Soft Focus, not the f/2 L ... I just wanted to clarify that, since Canon makes two 135 mm prime lenses.

And it turns out 135 mm is a very ideal focal length for portraiture. If you're using a 1.6x cropped body, the 85/1.8 might be more comfortable to work with, in terms of where it'll force you to stand in relation to your model, to get a good photo. It's not a soft focus lens, but keep in mind that soft focus can be done in Photoshop.

Here's a photo from the 135/2 with some digital SF applied - it's not quite as good as the real thing, but also not that far behind: