# What is the deal with Canon 135mm f/2.8 soft focus?



## RAKAMRAK (Aug 16, 2013)

I was wondering what is the the deal with this lens? There has been no update of this lens (as far as I know) from its version 1. No one here on CR talks about it or asks of it or mentions it!! There is not even a lens gallery for this lens on here! So no one uses/has this lens here? Just idly wondering.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 16, 2013)

I didn't even know it existed... though I do lust after the 135L.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Aug 16, 2013)

Hey @jdramirez, am correct in seeing that you sold off your 100mm macro L for 85mm 1.8? That is something I thought I shall never see someone doing. Interesting.


----------



## bchernicoff (Aug 16, 2013)

I have not used this lens, but it seems like this is a case where there is no down side to adding the soft focus in post processing. In the film days this lens created a unique look. Now, its just easier and probably better to do add the effect later.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Aug 16, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> I have not used this lens, but it seems like this is a case where there is no down side to adding the soft focus in post processing. In the film days this lens created a unique look. Now, its just easier and probably better to do add the effect later.



That may surely be the scenario....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 16, 2013)

But just think - you could use this lens on a video dSLR and effortlessly recreate close ups of female characters from the original Star Trek series...


----------



## distant.star (Aug 16, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> But just think - you could use this lens on a video dSLR and effortlessly recreate close ups of female characters from the original Star Trek series...



Shatner would surely be interested in that.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 16, 2013)

RAKAMRAK said:


> Hey @jdramirez, am correct in seeing that you sold off your 100mm macro L for 85mm 1.8? That is something I thought I shall never see someone doing. Interesting.



not really. I bought a 70-200 f2.8L is mkii and basically stopped using the 100L. so I sold it. then I saw a really good deal on the 85 and I bought it. 275 for it was simply too good of a deal for me to say no thank you to.

I miss my 100 L... so I may pick one up again.


----------



## gferdinandsen (Aug 16, 2013)

RAKAMRAK said:


> I was wondering what is the the deal with this lens? There has been no update of this lens (as far as I know) from its version 1. No one here on CR talks about it or asks of it or mentions it!! There is not even a lens gallery for this lens on here! So no one uses/has this lens here? Just idly wondering.




Does Canon still manufacture it...I have not heard of it in years. My best guess is that the effect of the lens can be easily replicated in photoshop so it is no longer needed like it was in film days. In fact I see it on EBay from about $250 buy it now.


----------



## baltdave (Aug 16, 2013)

I bought the lens on eBay for about $220 to check it out. It is sharp although pictures don't look as good as they do on my 85mm 1.8. I have occasionally found it helpful to have a telephoto prime that is compact so I plan to keep the lens. I've toyed with the soft focus feature although really haven't found a use for it so generally leave it turned off. On my crop sensor it gave me enough reach to photograph my son's little league games without the other parents thinking I am crazy to have a big white lens!


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 16, 2013)

I owned this lens for a couple of years, usual first gen build (i.e. solid) usual first gen AF (sloooooooooooooow and NOISSYYY!!!!)

Ok optically. I tended to use it with the SF dialled out. It was an effective 200mm f2.8 on my 400D (at the time) but the AF was way to slow to make it any cop as a sports lens.

I sold mine when I mistakenly thought there was internal haze (and sold it with this declared) turns out this is a quirk of the SF element.

Would I seek another out? No. Things have moved on somewhat, and I never needed the SF bit in the first place.


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Aug 16, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> But just think - you could use this lens on a video dSLR and effortlessly recreate close ups of female characters from the original Star Trek series...


True, but without the dress and the psycho eyes, it just wouldn't be Kodos The Executioner's daughter.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Aug 16, 2013)

Neuro has a good point. If the manual focus lends itself to video techniques, it could be a very nice option for soft focus video.

I've seen this lens listed many times and wondered what on earth anyone would use it for today.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Aug 16, 2013)

Although Canon website shows this lens to be "current" in production, neither Adorama nor BH photo seems to have it listed!!!

Lenore please do not kill Kirk.


----------



## EOBeav (Aug 18, 2013)

I sold a kidney earlier this summer to get a 135mm f/2 L. I've seen images shot with the 'soft focus' 135mm, and just haven't been impressed. Now excuse me, I need to get to my dialysis appointment.


----------



## Vossie (Aug 18, 2013)

EOBeav said:


> I sold a kidney earlier this summer to get a 135mm f/2 L. I've seen images shot with the 'soft focus' 135mm, and just haven't been impressed. Now excuse me, I need to get to my dialysis appointment.



You sell your organs cheap. An average kidney should be able to yield you more that $1000!


----------



## EOBeav (Aug 19, 2013)

Vossie said:


> You sell your organs cheap. An average kidney should be able to yield you more that $1000!



It's all relative.


----------

