EF 135mm f/2.8 SF review?

[darkstar]

Where can I find a review of the EF 135mm f/2.8 SF? The posts on the

Photo.net forum seem to like the lens, but I can not find a review of it.

 

I am thinking about getting this as my 2nd lens (my other is the 50mm

f/1.8).

[ryanjoseph]

I recall Phillip Greenspun giving this lens due praise for its superb quality, and his only problem with it was that it had no FTM.

[harman_bajwa]

I did read some insights on fredmiranda.com:

<p>

 

<a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=35&sort=7&thecat=2">Click Here</a><br>

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=35&sort=7&thecat=2

<p>

 

HTH

<p>

 

- Harman

[majid]

You can check out some samples I posted on <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004qqP">this thread</a>. It's a nice lens, but rather specialized unless you do a lot of female portraits. You have to use the soft focus effect gingerly, it is very easy to overdo. I would recommend the 70-200 f/4L as a second lens instead.

[brian_potts]

I am not sure where any reviews are. It is one of the most underrated lenses in my opinion. It is older in design, and it does not offer USM or FTM. It does act as a short, light weight and sharp lens. It also has the benefit of acting like a soft lens if you want as well.<br><br>

 

Here are a couple of shots I took 2-3 weeks ago at f/2.8 with SF setting of 1.<br><br>

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/kristen/kristen%20soft%20focus%20setting%201%203-7-2004%20(8193)_std.jpg">

<br><br>

 

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/rachel/rachel%20soft%20focus%203-7-2004%20(8182)_std.jpg">

</center>

[yakim_peled1]

<P> <a href="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox6.htm">Another review</a>. </P>

 

<P> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </P>

[panos_voudouris]

I bought one a month ago 2nd hand. Got the hood cheap from ebay as well.

 

It is a great lens and complements my 50 f/1.8 and 28 f/2.8 lenses very well. I like the particular length as 85-100 is too short for me. I ended up with the 135mm sf as it is long enough to be useful, I hardly ever needed something longer than 135, and it is f/2.8. The lens itself is very solid, and although lacking USM as most complain, focusing is very fast and the sound is nowhere near the 50 1.8 which has a similar AFD motor. In fact, the noise levels are more like the kit 28-90mm non-USM ones.

 

The soft-focus effect is nice for portraits and landscapes, although I am still in the process of learning how to use it (I always seem to have the wrong background!).

 

Panos

[victoriaperelet]

I used 135sf for quite few years and it is very nice lens, for examples you can see some of portraits on my photo.net page.

 

In digital age, there�s no need for optical soft focus effect anymore.

 

In case if you are considering one, I�d suggest to look at 100mm F2 EF or 100mm F2.8 EF macro. Macro is a bit more expensive but much more versatile � you can�t do macro focusing in PhotoShop:).

 

70-200 2.8 will cover 135mm with about same quality (maybe a bit less) but it is just plain heavy for fashion studio work.

 

Victoria.

[darkstar]

I was looking at this lens more as a (<$300) telephoto lens than for the softfocus effect.

 

As I do not want a zoom lens, the 70-200mm is out of the question.