I've just bought a 135mm f/2.8 prime lens at a price I found surprising.
Go on. Have a guess.
How much of a wallet-shafting did I just get?
Incoming, and a little challenge
I've just bought a 135mm f/2.8 prime lens at a price I found surprising.
Go on. Have a guess. How much of a wallet-shafting did I just get? |
|
Manual focus?
B&H has a used manual focus one for $290. http://www.bhphotovi...mm_f_2_8_AIS.html That would be, what, about £20?
The f/2.0D autofocus 135 is $1179. (gulp). Enjoy! Cheers, Scott. |
|
Re: Manual focus?
£23.98 including postage and an adapter ring (from M42 to Canon EF).
Bargain! |
|
Indeed!
|
|
$1.00 dollar roughly .62 pounds
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
|
|
It has arrived!
And it's a tad challenging to use. You do a lot of "zooming with your feet" because it's got one hell of a reach (135mm on a crop sensor is like 216mm on a full-frame).
But it works, and it works well. The front element has a few very light scuffs but they don't appreciably affect the outcome. At f/2.8, the DoF for a subject at 5 metres distance is just 14 centimetres, so patience and care is required. Definitely one for static subjects. Enough blather, here's some pictures: http://bit.ly/RZ8inv and http://flic.kr/p/dvB7HY |
|
Nice, as always
--
Drew |
|
Nice. Should be a great portrait lens.
|
|
Its a bit long for that
|
|
Paparazzi portraits?
;-)
I guess I was remembering my old 105mm-f/4-ish when I was taking pictures with a film SLR. But some say a fast 135 is fine for portraits, too - e.g. http://forums.dprevi...rum-post-40086787 http://forums.dprevi...rum-post-40086787 Cheers, Scott. (Who misses blurry backgrounds since he's mostly used an SX10IS over the last few years.) |
|
Shhh! Those are not allowed anymore around Blighty ;-)
But the post is about a full frame Canon 5d. If I parsed this thread correctly, Peter's is a 35mm lens but his camera has a smaller sensor, making the 135 look like a 216. Field of view would definitely be affected.
|
|
Ah. You're right. Where are the $500 full-frame sensors..?
|