Canon EF 135mm f/2.8

[zach_rivers]

Im looking seriously at this lens after playing around with my friend's old 70-300 f/4-

5.6. I have the original Elan film camera and the nifty fifty lens. I liked his lens at

right around 150mm, but i think that it was too slow at some points, and fully

extended, not at all sharp. I shoot mainly outdoor B&W nature shots, but am

moving into shooting sports as a hobby. I like that this lens is a prime, so it should

be nice and crisp.

 

any opinions?

[bueh]

For sports you want a lens that is 1) long, 2) fast and 3) has fast <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;" title="Ultrasonic Motor">USM</abbr>. While the EF 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus lens is reasonably long and fast, its <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;" title="autofocus">AF</abbr> is rather slow. It is also not very sharp, being noticeably <b><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=306&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=118">softer</a></b> than the EF 100mm f/2 USM lens wide open. If 135mm is the focal length you want, better get the EF 135mm f/2 L USM (expensive!) or try the longer but also excellent EF 200mm f/2.8 L USM prime.

[zach_rivers]

I'd love to go up to L series, but as a senior in high school with college looming, I can't afford it. I was sort of treating this as a budget lens that would hold me over, and give me more options, until I am able to put together the resources to but some L glass.

 

Thanks for the quick response

[JDMvW]

Have you considered the really inexpensive alternative of one of the many, older, manual-focus lenses? The manual focus makes it less than ideal for sports (although somehow, sports photographers did manage before auto-focus), but for nature photography these can be quite decent. Many preset, manual-focus lenses were made in T-mounts and will fit many different cameras, including EOS cameras. Spiratone, Vivitar, Soligor, Tamron under its own name, and many others made f/2.8 and faster lenses, the telephotos running from 85mm up to 500mm and beyond. Many of these sell for MUCH less than US$100 on eBay. In fact, at any one time, there are usually several Spiratone 400mm f/6.3 Pluracoats (thought to have been made by Tamron) up for sale.

There are also f/2.8 135mm and others.

The optical quality of these is often (not always) much better than you would believe without trying one.

[PuppyDigs]

I owned the EF 135 2.8 SF for over 15 years. Mine was tack sharp wide open and

focused fast due to the internal focus design. It certainly bested my EF 70-200 4L

USM in AF department. Psychologically it may seem slower than USM due to the

audible AF motor, but put a stop watch on the 135 2.8 and it's pretty dad burn peppy.

It's one of Canon's grossly underrated lenses.

[carnagex_carnagex]

Ive tried out my friends 135mm, and being pretty much a L prime only snob, I have

to say its a sharp lens. Especially considering the age, and the autofocus is not that

bad, its better then say the 50 1.8 or 28 2.8, not fast, but accurate. If this is all you

can afford, you wont be disappointed, its one of those sleeper lenses thats always

underated. (wish they would do a revision on this lens).

 

Review for you: http://www.prime-

junta.net/pont/Reviews/065_Canon_135_F2.8_Soft_Focus/_Canon_135_2.8_Soft_Fo

cus.html

[jeff2909]

I have the 200 f2.8L and the 135 f2.8SF and both of these lenses are tack sharp and the 135 soft focus lets you take some shots that are very different. You will have to experiment to see what effects you can come up with. It works great with flowers and berry's other things like this. I have also used it at hockey games and have been very pleased. I also could not justify the cost of the L glass and this lens has not disappointed.

[sheldonnalos]

I bought one recently just to take on a trip to Mexico - didn't want to cart around expensive/heavy lenses.

 

I was very impressed - compact, light, and sharp. It compared favorably with my 70-200 f/2.8L.

[aappelphotography]

I liked the 135 F2.8 SF but missed USM and FTM. I switched to the 100mm F2 USM.. On a crop body it has the FOV of 160mm, so nice for outdoors but even indoors head portraits are possible. 135 would be too long on a crop body for me, as a general portrait lens. My 2 cent.

[sfinkernagel]

I shoot a lot of indoor sports (basketball, volleyball) at a local high school, and I have to say that I LOVE the 135 f2.0 that was suggested earlier. In most of the gyms in my area, f2.8 ends up too slow to get good shutter speeds for action shots. I also understand your budget concerns- I would look seriously at the 85 f1.8. Lots of time I find that I am too close to use the 135 and the 85 is a perfect solution.

[zach_rivers]

Steve- I think that the 85 f1.8 would be too similar in length to my 50mm mark II that i already have. i was originally looking at it, but i decided i wanted something with a longer reach.

[bjscharp]

For shooting sport indoors with a crop body, the 135mm f2.0 together with a 1.4 extender is a killer combo. In effect, it gives you a 200mm and a 300mm lens with 2.0 and 2.8 max apertures, respectively, and the crop factor means that any loss in corner sharpness (if any, I've never seen it) caused by the extender is lost outside the sensor.

 

I use it a lot for shooting in swimming pools. See here for an example:

http://www.photo.net/photo/7088553

[nathan_meador]

I picked up the 200mm 2.8L from Amazon for less than $700; and on a 1.6 crop body, it has very good reach. I use it for wildlife, my kids at the playground and at school events, etc... Maybe a bit too long for basketball games and other indoor sports though. The 135 is probably your best overall option.

[kitaphoto]

I've just picked up a MF Vivitar 135/2.8 and it is compact, well built and sharp...here's a 50% crop

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/6756/squir2luw9.jpg