Wilderness Images Loc: Apache Junction, AZ.

A couple of weeks ago, a friend called and told me that, due to age and health issues, they would be downsizing to a smaller home. He invited me to stop over and help him pick through his collection of photo gear.

Jack S. has photo equipment (cameras, lenses, lens filters, etc.) going back several decades so I recommended donating them to a local High School. He did, however, convince me to take three plastic boxes of ‘stuff’ that he had decided to part with.

Later, while I was checking through my ‘treasure’, I came across a Canon EF series lens that’s 135mm, f2.8 “Softfocus”.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/135mm-soft-focus.htm

I’ve never heard of such a lens, so I had to do some research to find out more about it. Very interesting lens if you’re a Portrait Photographer, wanting to add a little (or a lot) of out-of-focus to the subject. Sure, you can do the same thing in PP, but with this lens, you can see the results right now.

Just wondering if anyone has heard of or had the opportunity to try out this unique lens. It’s kinda fun to play with, but I’m primarily a landscape photographer and it goes against my grain to intentionally add out-of-focus to a shot, but the 2.8 size glass is nice for after hours shooting.

Jack Olson

pendennis

While I've never used the Canon version, I have used large format soft-focus lenses for portraiture. The lenses do focus critically, but the images are "soft" because of chromatic aberration. Until lenses were coated, it was impossible to accurately focus an image because colors wouldn't focus to a single point. It was especially true at larger apertures. Out-of-focus and soft focus are two different phenomena.

There have been efforts to recreate the softness, certainly by Mamiya, but they mostly used diffusion disks to get the "same" effect.

If you've ever seen movies made from the dawn of moviemaking until the 1950's, you've seen the softness of females in solo shots. Men, on the other hand, were more often shown "wrinkles and all" (lenses stopped down).

At one time, I owned an old Taylor-Hobson lens which was phenomenal for portraits. It wouldn't sync with electronic flash, so I sent it to a company in Chicago in 1980, and they changed the shutter to sync with everything. I sold a lot of portraits to women who were looking to hide the crows' feet, and frown lines. The lens paid for itself in a couple of years.

However, as you state, it's not particularly good for landscape, unless you want a softer, dreamier feeling in your shots.

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

Owned one back in the mid 90's -- nice & sharp lightweight lens -- Focus may have been a tad slow -- Eventually saved enough up to buy the 135 2.0L -- A quick search of the web will provide all the data you need - But from my not so good memory, the Soft Focus (switch I think) did not come into play until you were wide open or real close --
I also recall the effect did not display via the viewfinder -- Just the same nice portrait effect -- Hope this helps

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Jack I have (and use) the Nikon equivalent extensively... It's a brilliantly unique portrait lens.
That being the Nikon 135mm f/2D DC which has often called "The King of Bokeh"
It is more than Razor sharp when set to (0) Neutral...
However you can "adjust" either background or foreground "settings" to control the expression of it's Bokeh.

btw, many folks who try this Nikkor say it's useless... likely because they haven't taken the time to explore it's amazing potentials... It's a massive and heavy beast... I Totally LOVE IT!

Jack you may have an epic winner there, try to experiment to see what it's capable of...
And please come back and sharing your artistry...

The Nikon 135mm f/2D DC on a Nikon D3x...

(Download)

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

It was a long time ago, but I did experiment with that lens at one time. I now instead have the Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM (which has somewhat of a cult following).

However, that EF 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus also is one of the sharpest short telephotos when you DON'T dial in the softening effect. If you shoot with Canon EOS cameras, you really should give it a try before dismissing it. Especially try it stopped down a bit. I think you'll find it can be very sharp.

Just yesterday I watched a YouTube video by Mads Peter Iverson where he was singing the praises of using short to moderate telephotos for landscape photography. He made some good points and had some nicely done examples. A lot of his shots were done right around 135mm. If interested, you can search YouTube for his upload titled "Why Wide Angle Lenses are not 'landscape lenses'".

Below is the very first shot I took with my EF 135mm f/2.0... wide open of course... to see just how shallow depth of field it rendered!



P.S. Canon hasn't yet introduced a 135mm lens for the new RF-mount R-series mirrorless cameras. However, they do offer an RF 85mm f/1.2L "DS" that uses a Fresnel lens for user adjustable "defocus smoothing" of out of focus areas in images. It ain't cheap, either!

P.P.S. I'll be surprised if a high school has any interest in your friend's old gear. Most kids these days use a phone with a built in camera and are only interested in digital. Your friend might instead consider offering it here or elsewhere online to see if there are some folks who would appreciate the old gear, as it should be. Your friend deserves to get a little money out of things of value, too.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

💞❣️💘❣️💞

Wilderness Images Loc: Apache Junction, AZ.

Thanks very much Dennis for that follow-up. I was hoping someone would respond that had some experience with this or a similar lens.

Jack Olson

Wilderness Images Loc: Apache Junction, AZ.

Thanks for the reply Ken, it all helps to keep the lens in perspective.

Jack Olson

Wilderness Images Loc: Apache Junction, AZ.

Thanks for the reply Thomas, sounds like you have had a lot of experience with the same style lens. I'll have to keep it ready for use when one of those rare instances presents itself. I like the large glass and think it may come in handy for some of those late-nite shots.

Jack

Wilderness Images Loc: Apache Junction, AZ.

Thanks for the reply Alan, that's great photo you posted. I may have to keep that lens handy. I saw that article about the wide angle lens not being the only lens for landscape, guess I'll have to look it up and watch it.

I'm afraid you're right about donating the lens to a school, but so far they've been receptive to donations from our art club.

Jack Olson

User ID

Great very clear explanation !

Excepting the reference to lens coatings.

Coating can "tune up" color *rendition*, but it has no effect on actual chromatic aberrations. Since both things are often loosely called "color correction", some misinformation has become embedded, but faulty, photo lore.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

mvetrano2 Loc: Commack, NY

I had one and used it for portraits for about a year, then sold it. I do better with my 24-105 for portraits with much better results.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

I’m still waiting for someone to explain the “why” of a soft focus lens. ;). Today with the obsession over sharpness it seems like the exact opposite of what people want.

MountainDave

When I use my 135 2L (one of Canon's sharpest), "women of a certain age" often complain it is "too sharp." I love the lens, my wife hates it. Haha. Seriously, I can see where a soft focus has uses if you're looking for a certain effect.