Great lens. I had a few WTB posts on this lens too. Nobody wants to get rid of a light, sharp, relatively fast lens that can do soft focus as a bonus! Fortunately I got a PM and bought one from a FM'er here. Good luck bump!
i purchased a 135 f/2.8 SF from a fellow FMer and it should arrive tomorrow. it is a relitivly fast and a very sharp lens that i think is often overlooked. i sold my original copy of this lens and have regreted it almost immediaely, hence the purchase of a used copy here. good luck looking for one, i am sure someone will offer one to you.
I hope something comes through, I'm trying to save a little cash. I'm going to Europe (France, England, Prague), my first trip, next month. I was just going to take my s500 with me, but decided I had to have my D60. I want to travel very light, and I want the gear to be inconspicuous. Just taking a 24 2.8, 50 1.8 and hopefully the 135. I do like to take portraits, so the 135 would be a nice addition for that as well.
I've read really good reviews about this lens, seems that most people really like it. May not be L quality, but for the price it gets very high ratings.
Bump. I just got this lens and LOVE it. Wouldn't sell it for the world. If no one has a bargain for you, 17thStreet Photo has them new for $259 grey market. Well worth the price IMHO
robertmealing wrote:
Just taking a 24 2.8, 50 1.8 and hopefully the 135. I do like to take portraits, so the 135 would be a nice addition for that as well.
On a 1.6x crop factor body, I'd recommend the 85/1.8 over the 135/2.8. Even the 50/1.8 can be used for pleasing portraits on a D60, though the 85/1.8 would be preferred outdoors, I think.
May not be L quality, but for the price it gets very high ratings.
The 135/2.8 is easily "L quality." It just doesn't have a red stripe. It's better than any of the 70-200L zooms at 135mm, certainly. Even so, if I were only carrying three lenses on a trip to Europe with a D60, and two of them were the 24/2.8 and 50/1.8, I'd probably go for the 85/1.8 for the third. If I could carry a fourth as well, it would be the 135/2.8.
I don't agree... I have had the 135 SF for a short time previously and it performed much worse than my 70-200F4L in terms of contrast, bokeh and especially sharpness. I'll post a few sample pictures in the next thread...
nutek wrote:
I don't agree... I have had the 135 SF for a short time previously and it performed much worse than my 70-200F4L in terms of contrast, bokeh and especially sharpness. I'll post a few sample pictures in the next thread...
Your 135/2.8 was misfocused (obvious in the comparison you posted), and possibly a bad copy. The 135/2.8 is sharper and delivers better contrast than any of the 70-200L lenses.
Edit: I see, you were focused on the edge of the lamp, not the poster. In that case, I'm not sure what you're trying to say... the lamp edge is clearly sharper with the 135/2.8 and shows more contrast (on the lamp edge) than the 70-200. Furthermore, had you stopped the 135/2.8 down to f/4, you would have seen even better performance out of it. The comparison you made there isn't even equal due to the differing apertures.
I was referring to the bokeh in that picture, not the focus. Yes I did have a bad copy in terms of focus, and thus sent it back. The lenses were compared wide-open, which should give the 135SF an edge in terms of bokeh, if anything.
The focus was right smack in the center of the thumbnail picture using the center focus point. The 135SF was front focussing, so it will render the edge of the lamp sharper. I wouldn't say the 135SF is a bad lens, but just that it just doesn't match up with the L lenses in the bokeh department.
Edited by nutek on Feb 05, 2005 at 10:01 PM GMT
Edited by nutek on Feb 05, 2005 at 10:02 PM GMT
Edited by nutek on Feb 05, 2005 at 10:05 PM GMT (Reason: removed "contrast" - agree with moondigger's point)
nutek wrote:
I was referring to the bokeh and contrast in that picture, not the focus. Yes I did have a bad copy in terms of focus, and thus sent it back.
Contrast is increased when a lens is stopped down. It's still not a valid comparison because the apertures were different.
To make a valid comparison of the contrast of bokeh, you have to shoot at the same apertures. Obviously f/2.8 will be more out of focus than f/4, but contrast will be lower as well.
Bokeh is not how *much* "out of focus" there is. Yes, at f/2.8 the same lens will have more out of focus area than at f/4 - that is a function of depth of field. Bokeh is more about how "pleasing" the out of focus areas area, especially for specular highlights. In the example I have shown, the bokeh of the 135F2.8 is clearly not as pleasing (ok, to me) than the 70-200. This is probably attributed to the number of diaphragm blades (6 vs 8) and the different optical construction of the lenses.
