Guest Posted April 13, 2017 Share #21 Posted April 13, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have one, but I find avoidance has served me well so far! Maybe I need a flattering 500mm lens? No problem, avoid any tripod and every hand held distance portrait taken with a 500mm lens will become very flattering. If I take my 500mm lens, which is a mirror lens construction, there will be included some donuts as additional free pastries. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 13, 2017 Posted April 13, 2017 Hi Guest, Take a look here thambar success. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
dkCambridgeshire Posted April 13, 2017 Share #22 Posted April 13, 2017 Have you ever had one? It's a fairly simple calculation: The more satisfied your mother-in-law is with you, the easier you will collect bonus points at your wife - not at least for your next Leica lens... But therefore you might find cheaper solutions than a Thambar. The 1954 125/2.5 Hektor is a very similar optical design to the Thambar 90/2.2; both are renowned soft focus lenses. Compare the schematic ray trace diagrams in the Leica Lens Compendium to see the similarity. Maybe it's possible to obtain a Thambar-esque portrait using the 125mm Hektor by experimenting with various diameter opaque discs applied to the Hektor's E58 filter. Worth a try but buying a 125mm Hektor could cost c. £500 or more … but would be considerably cheaper that a Thambar costing £3K+ dunk Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
willeica Posted April 13, 2017 Share #23 Posted April 13, 2017 Hello Everybody, In its advertiseing, during the 1930's, Leitz said: When used without the additional "spot" filter the softness in the image was due to "under corrected spherical abberation" which could be lessened by stopping the lens down. At which point the lens could be used like any other lens. Best Regards, Michael If you look at my exchange with Pico on the thread about my Grubb lens from the mid 19th century (80 years before the Thambar) you will see that, even then, lens designers were aware of the possibilities brought about in correcting or not correcting specific aberrations. Pico has some interesting observations to make about the trade off between aesthetics and outright sharpness. The demand in today's digital world is for sharpness over all other considerations. Photographers are now visually trained to expect sharpness and vivid colours and abhor anything that does not conform with this ideal. There have been some attempts to break free from this orthodoxy, including the Lomo mentioned here and the Lensbaby and the somewhat difficult to use Nikkor DC lenses. The Nikkor DC lenses appear to create spherical aberrations to produce certain out of focus effects, including both haze and glow. I also recall using Cokin soft focus filters during the 1980s but they seem to have gone out of fashion. The Thambar comes from the same era as my own personal favourite, the Summar, which can also produce great aesthetic effects depending on how it is used. William 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted April 13, 2017 Share #24 Posted April 13, 2017 Why would you want to flatter your mother in law? I got along very well with my mother-in-law! It was her daughter I could not stand. . 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted April 13, 2017 Share #25 Posted April 13, 2017 I have learned my lesson from ownership of LTM 90mm Summicron. Conceptually, it was a lens I had to have. Reality, i.e. the size and weight of the thing, led to very infrequent use. It is not so much the price of these fascinating and unique collectibles, it is the price combined with the fact they do, and would, see very infrequent use........Not to mention the preciousness factor that requires me to constantly direct all of my attention, all of the time while it is out of the bag and in use. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
willeica Posted April 14, 2017 Share #26 Posted April 14, 2017 I have learned my lesson from ownership of LTM 90mm Summicron. Conceptually, it was a lens I had to have. Reality, i.e. the size and weight of the thing, led to very infrequent use. It is not so much the price of these fascinating and unique collectibles, it is the price combined with the fact they do, and would, see very infrequent use........Not to mention the preciousness factor that requires me to constantly direct all of my attention, all of the time while it is out of the bag and in use. A collector who is just happy to have a lens does not have these concerns as it will probably stay in a cabinet. For user purposes you are probably better to get a fairly worn copy for use in the field. People with modern digital Ms and say 3 lenses may be walking around with 12 to 15 K (choose your currency) worth of Leica gear in their bags, however. You could buy buy 3 or 4 Thambars in good condition for that kind of money. It really is a personal decision which is down to how you view these things and value and regard your possessions and your wallet, of course. William Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted April 14, 2017 Share #27 Posted April 14, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) A collector who is just happy to have a lens does not have these concerns as it will probably stay in a cabinet. For user purposes you are probably better to get a fairly worn copy for use in the field. People with modern digital Ms and say 3 lenses may be walking around with 12 to 15 K (choose your currency) worth of Leica gear in their bags, however. You could buy buy 3 or 4 Thambars in good condition for that kind of money. It really is a personal decision which is down to how you view these things and value and regard your possessions and your wallet, of course. William All you say is absolutely true. However, even worn copies of these magnificent lenses present the same problems, in use, as pristine examples. Additionally, even the worn copies- although less expensive- usually present a significant investment. The purpose of my comments, maybe misplaced in a discussion of the photographic attributes of Thambar, were to relate the experience of one user, me, with large, heavy LTM lenses. I purchased my behemoth, the 90 Summicron, because I imagined it would present another great experience related to the magic of old Leica glass. It did not disappoint. What I did not anticipate was the full magnitude that 660 grams of weight. I thought it worth mentioning. It was one of those things that, in reality, far exceeded what existed in my imaginings before purchase. I am glad to read of OP's success with the Thambar. I would guess that such success with this lens can only be the result of dedication to regular use of the lens. The photographs are very pleasing to the eye. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted April 14, 2017 Share #28 Posted April 14, 2017 I have a little anecdotal story about the Thambar : one day (10 year ago) I found a Thambar with a shim, made using a white metal, width like a can metal, in between the optic head and the barrel body ???? As the thread is kind of fine multiple one on this lens, I supposed that the owner or pre owner dismounted it without repairing when the pieces separate. not easy next to find the right's one and used this trick for getting some focusing in setting with the range finder but it was not the case. But at that time I had one of the first M8, so I fixed the camera on a tripod, the lens at full aperture and next measuring the right distance from the camera plan sensor and a plane subject, in this case a framed paint,next set this distance on the lens barrel (2 meter) I made different tries with different threads until I found the good ones as I get a neat focused picture on the screen.Certainly an easiest way than to use a film camera in era before. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
willeica Posted April 14, 2017 Share #29 Posted April 14, 2017 All you say is absolutely true. However, even worn copies of these magnificent lenses present the same problems, in use, as pristine examples. Additionally, even the worn copies- although less expensive- usually present a significant investment. The purpose of my comments, maybe misplaced in a discussion of the photographic attributes of Thambar, were to relate the experience of one user, me, with large, heavy LTM lenses. I purchased my behemoth, the 90 Summicron, because I imagined it would present another great experience related to the magic of old Leica glass. It did not disappoint. What I did not anticipate was the full magnitude that 660 grams of weight. I thought it worth mentioning. It was one of those things that, in reality, far exceeded what existed in my imaginings before purchase. I am glad to read of OP's success with the Thambar. I would guess that such success with this lens can only be the result of dedication to regular use of the lens. The photographs are very pleasing to the eye. I with you all the way on the size issue. 'Small is beautiful' for me in the photography world. William Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
derleicaman Posted April 22, 2017 Share #30 Posted April 22, 2017 At one point I had two Thambars in the collection, and having sold one of them years ago, I still have the one complete with proper filter, hood and cap. At the Dearborn LHSA meeting a few years back, I did a live demo of bokeh on various lenses with a tethered M240. During my presentation, I had the Thambar up on the screen and stated that the Thambar was the one Leica lens I loved to hate! I thought some of the people there were going to have a stroke! I had criticized their mythical and highly sought after icon of Leica lenses. I clarified by saying the Thambar is the most difficult and unpredictable Leica lens to use in practice. In my film days, I had used it for a wedding shoot, hoping to get some unique photos of the bride. Unfortunately, not. Nothing special in the results. When I receive my M10, I plan on giving the Thambar another go with using live view. Maybe then I can tame the beast. I have often thought that the 73 Hektor can be viewed as the poor man's Thambar. It gives much the same look at a fraction of the price, and is a much handier size than the 125 Hektor. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted April 22, 2017 Share #31 Posted April 22, 2017 (edited) ... When I receive my M10, I plan on giving the Thambar another go with using live view. Maybe then I can tame the beast. I have often thought that the 73 Hektor can be viewed as the poor man's Thambar. It gives much the same look at a fraction of the price, and is a much handier size than the 125 Hektor. No experience with M10, but I have tried my Thambar with M240 and liveview/EVF : is an odd game... at wide apertures you cannot, in practice, focus with EVF (expecially with the spot filter on) ... and closing diaphragm, you have the usual problem with EVF : all in all it remains a lens to be used with RF... and with all the hit and miss that are typical of the Thambar... Btw... I agree that Hektor 7,3cm is a valid alternative, without the (fascinating) oddities of the Thambar. Edited April 22, 2017 by luigi bertolotti 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodor Heinrichsohn Posted April 24, 2017 Share #32 Posted April 24, 2017 No experience with M10, but I have tried my Thambar with M240 and liveview/EVF : is an odd game... at wide apertures you cannot, in practice, focus with EVF (expecially with the spot filter on) ... and closing diaphragm, you have the usual problem with EVF : all in all it remains a lens to be used with RF... and with all the hit and miss that are typical of the Thambar... Btw... I agree that Hektor 7,3cm is a valid alternative, without the (fascinating) oddities of the Thambar. I completely agree with the unpredictability/difficulty in practice using the Thambar. I have used the lens on a IIIg, the M film cameras, the M240 and the Leica SL. Focusing is easiest with a RF camera. I used the lens mostly without the filter and at medium apertures. In many cases the pictures turned out to be unsharp with sharper centers. The most interesting pictures were of my daughter, portraits taken against the light in quite strong sunlight. The resulting "halo" was interesting and the shaded parts soft in lighting. I used Kodachrome 25 or 64, I don't remember which. I have not been able to obtain similarly pleasing pictures with the M240 or the SL. Bye the way, I have a extension ring for the Thambar which was said to be used for copying (!) Never used it. Teddy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.