tacomadm18 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 <p>How is this lens, I have a chance to pick one up for a good price,, I use a crop sensor,,,<br> thoughts</p> <p>thanks</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonyari Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 <p>It is wonderful on the full frame, nice bokeh, sharp. I think it might be too long for crop body. A lot of people complain about AF speed and the noise, I find it neligible. I don't shoot sport so it was of no concern to me. The screeching sound it makes as it focus can be annoying at first, but I found it ok too. <br> The good thing is it is cheap. You can find one on ebay for $250-300 range.<br> Here's an example. </p> <p><a title="Canon 135 f/2.8 test by Bon...yari, Bon., on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4046/5165593434_4cd14bb8c6.jpg" alt="Canon 135 f/2.8 test" width="333" height="500" /></a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_russell1 Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 <p>I had one for a couple of years, but never used it as much as I thought I would, the soft focus effect is pretty pronounced, even at the minimum setting, I would use PS instead. With the effect disabled it is a light, sharp tele, but yes the AF speed is horrific and the noise would wake the dead.<br> It would be an ideal lens for sports on an APS-C body, were it not for the lethargic motor. I thought it was a little long for portraiture. As such I ended up selling mine.<br> NB. There seems to be some discussion over one of the elements inside the lens, on some examples there appears to be loads and loads of tiny bubbles on one of the elements, sometimes mistaken for oil, vapour or the beginning of mould. This is apparantly normal on early examples, on later examples a different element was used.<br> Final verdict: If you have a specific use for a fast 200mm prime that doesn't focus quickly then its a good lens. For everybody else the money is probably better put towards a f2.8 telezoom.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drpath Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 <p>I leased this lens back when I was shooting a D60. It's light, reasonably compact, and reasonably sharp. The soft focus effect is fun, and I don't think it can be exactly duplicated in post processing or by filters. But I decided not to buy. Moderately priced zooms like the EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM offer better IQ, closer focusing, IS, USM -- and they're zooms! I believe even the EFS 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS tests better than the 135 SF.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpurvis Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 <p>I too picked one up cheep. I use a crop body and find it to be too long for most work. The 2.8 200mm eq was hard to beat for the price. On a recent trek around my city, I took many 7 other lenses and left this one at home. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now