Leica Thambar-M 90mm f/2.2

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I trust myself and know many people who trust me. I am shure I never told any false stories online. I was born close to Wetzlar and still know some people there. No need to go overseas.

 

If I posted they will bring a new 1:3.5/5cm Elmar Apo.Asph next May - would this be a confirmation that they really will do so?

Certainly a somewhat more meaningful lens than a reconstruction of the Thambar.

But Leica should call it Anastigmat Apo Asph, because "triple A" sounds better for future investors.

Perhaps you could still intervene?

[NB23]

 

Certainly a somewhat more meaningful lens than a reconstruction of the Thambar.

But Leica should call it Anastigmat Apo Asph, because "triple A" sounds better for future investors.

Perhaps you could still intervene?

Aaah, that's such Luxurious thinking. Velouté.

 

The DeLuxe clientele will love it.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Martin B]

Came across this thread and admit that I never even heard about the Thambar lens before. I googled and found some images and reviews about this old lens. Understanding how it works with this dotted filter, my question is the following: could a similar effect be achieved by using a regular older Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8 lens with homemade dotted UV filter on top? In the Thambar lens, the peripheral rays are purposely off-centered to create this blurry halo-like image. The Tele-Elmarit does is much better corrected for the peripheral rays, but just by blocking the center light rays some more blurry effect might be created, too? Did anybody try something like this?  

[Ecar]

Put filter on lens.

Get a tube of Vaseline.

Rub to taste.

Rinse and repeat for different effects.

Very velouté, as Ned would say...

[M9reno]

Put filter on lens.

Get a tube of Vaseline.

Rub to taste.

Rinse and repeat for different effects.

Very velouté, as Ned would say...

 I just posted this earlier this week.  But I'd love to see some of your Vaseline shots!  

 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/276736-how-leica-glow/?p=3366302

[luigi bertolotti]

Generally speaking... if they (Leica) have verified "in their pockets" that an item like the Summaron 28 5,6 gives a satisfactory return on investiment in a rather short time (was introduced 1 year ago exactly... right ?) , why not to continue along this line at a rate of  one-each-year ? There is space for a Thambar, an Alpine Elmar (wow the old magic of "f 6,3"...  ) , an Elmar 50 apo retractable... the Hektor name to resurge in 73 or 125mm...

 

After all... is not easy to imagine which NEW lenses can be done for the classic M Platform....OVF/framelines/RF/size  give strong limitations... even an interesting focal like 40 could be problematic... so they could decide to pursue the "nostalgia" way...

Edited September 29, 2017 by luigi bertolotti

[UliWer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just do it and we'll know by next May whether you are still to be trusted .

 

You don‘t have to wait until May. Common sense tells you that my announcement was worthless and nobody would call it a „confirmation“.

[UliWer]

Came across this thread and admit that I never even heard about the Thambar lens before. I googled and found some images and reviews about this old lens. Understanding how it works with this dotted filter, my question is the following: could a similar effect be achieved by using a regular older Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8 lens with homemade dotted UV filter on top? In the Thambar lens, the peripheral rays are purposely off-centered to create this blurry halo-like image. The Tele-Elmarit does is much better corrected for the peripheral rays, but just by blocking the center light rays some more blurry effect might be created, too? Did anybody try something like this?  

 

 

You may try: to put a sticker on the center of the filter is quite easy.

 

I don't think it will work. The lens design of the Thambar was a failure. Used like a normal lens wide opened it delivered very low contrast and sharpness. This was not acceptable even at this time. Stopped down it was better - but for a lens with lower opening they already had the 4/90 Elmar - so why sell a new lense much more expensive than the Elmar which was almost unusable in the regions you couldn't get with the Elmar and not better than the Elmar when stopped down?

 

Then someone had the idea to use it in a weird way: block the light from the center - where usually lenses are best - and use only the weak outer parts of the front lens. Now you got the very soft "paint" combined with the psychedelic effect of blurring rings in the "bokeh". Now someone who liked this could get pictures like  from late 19th century when some "pictoralists" wanted to make photos which resampled paintings. 

 

Even in the 30s this approach was Kitsch: to look for some outdated style by copying it with technical means for commercial aims. The "pictoralist" approach in the 30s was a nasty slap in the face of what Leica had achieved: Give a tool to the photographer to enable him to look at the world in a neutral way to compse something new by black, white and grey structures. For doing this you need a neutral lens - like the Elmar - not one which intervenes with its own imperfections and subjective pretensions.

 

Now back to the Tele-Elmarit.  You are right that it is much better corrected - and the lenses are coated. Even the weak outer parts of the front lens deliver much more contrast and sharpness than the failed Thambar design. It will not be "soft" but only very weak, no "painting" effects but only harshness and weird disturbances if you do the same as they did with the Thambar 80 years ago. 

 

And further back to the "new Thambar" - allegedly already confirmed: Does anyone expect old, "bad" glass, uncoated, where you have to use a center filter? Of course one could expect a complete new design which achieves the softness and blurs by modern means - still a failure as lens design standards are concerned, but a deliberate one. This would be a completely different lens, having nothing to do with the old Thambar, but perhaps bearing its name.

 

Kitsch again - a locomotive with a steam engine design but with diesel motor.   

Edited September 29, 2017 by UliWer

[luigi bertolotti]

... so they could decide to pursue the "nostalgia" way...

... not excluding a touch of "Kitsch"... which can have some collateral appeal...

 

(at the end, they SOLD some red Summicrons....)

Edited September 30, 2017 by luigi bertolotti

[M9reno]

Even in the 30s this approach was Kitsch: 

Is Kitsch the same as bad taste?  If so, as I've said, reasonable people can differ about what is good and bad.

 

 

to look for some outdated style by copying it with technical means for commercial aims. 

Why outdated?  The 1930's had more than one style.  And there has always been a pictorialist style in photography, even today.

 

It should be normal for Leitz to have commercial aims.

 

 

The "pictoralist" approach in the 30s was a nasty slap in the face of what Leica had achieved: Give a tool to the photographer to enable him to look at the world in a neutral way to compse something new by black, white and grey structures. For doing this you need a neutral lens - like the Elmar - not one which intervenes with its own imperfections and subjective pretensions.

 

What is a neutral lens?  A 90mm will appear to compress distances.  A 35mm will appear to expand distances.  An open 50mm will have a depth of field.  All of these things can be visualised but not seen directly through a Leica viewfinder.  With enough practice, the imperfections and subjective pretensions (= rendering?) of a Thambar can be controlled, just as with any other lens.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think it will work. The lens design of the Thambar was a failure. Used like a normal lens wide opened it delivered very low contrast and sharpness. This was not acceptable even at this time. Stopped down it was better - but for a lens with lower 

And further back to the "new Thambar" - allegedly already confirmed: Does anyone expect old, "bad" glass, uncoated, where you have to use a center filter? Of course one could expect a complete new design which achieves the softness and blurs by modern means - still a failure as lens design standards are concerned, but a deliberate one. This would be a completely different lens, having nothing to do with the old Thambar, but perhaps bearing its name.

 

Kitsch again - a locomotive with a steam engine design but with diesel motor.   

Now, those are all interesting questions.  But not kitsch, at least to me.

[Martin B]

You may try: to put a sticker on the center of the filter is quite easy.

 

I don't think it will work. The lens design of the Thambar was a failure. Used like a normal lens wide opened it delivered very low contrast and sharpness. This was not acceptable even at this time. Stopped down it was better - but for a lens with lower opening they already had the 4/90 Elmar - so why sell a new lense much more expensive than the Elmar which was almost unusable in the regions you couldn't get with the Elmar and not better than the Elmar when stopped down?

 

Then someone had the idea to use it in a weird way: block the light from the center - where usually lenses are best - and use only the weak outer parts of the front lens. Now you got the very soft "paint" combined with the psychedelic effect of blurring rings in the "bokeh". Now someone who liked this could get pictures like  from late 19th century when some "pictoralists" wanted to make photos which resampled paintings. 

 

Even in the 30s this approach was Kitsch: to look for some outdated style by copying it with technical means for commercial aims. The "pictoralist" approach in the 30s was a nasty slap in the face of what Leica had achieved: Give a tool to the photographer to enable him to look at the world in a neutral way to compse something new by black, white and grey structures. For doing this you need a neutral lens - like the Elmar - not one which intervenes with its own imperfections and subjective pretensions.

 

Now back to the Tele-Elmarit.  You are right that it is much better corrected - and the lenses are coated. Even the weak outer parts of the front lens deliver much more contrast and sharpness than the failed Thambar design. It will not be "soft" but only very weak, no "painting" effects but only harshness and weird disturbances if you do the same as they did with the Thambar 80 years ago. 

 

And further back to the "new Thambar" - allegedly already confirmed: Does anyone expect old, "bad" glass, uncoated, where you have to use a center filter? Of course one could expect a complete new design which achieves the softness and blurs by modern means - still a failure as lens design standards are concerned, but a deliberate one. This would be a completely different lens, having nothing to do with the old Thambar, but perhaps bearing its name.

 

Kitsch again - a locomotive with a steam engine design but with diesel motor.   

 

I might give it a try with the Tele-Elmarit just out of curiosity using a dotted UV filter first on top. Some use even softening filters on sharp DSLR glass to make skin in portraits look smoother and to avoid a lot of digital PP to get there. I read online that the Thambar "look" was best achieved not wide open but somewhere in the middle of the aperture range with light coming from the back behind the subject. This created the distinct halo effect around head and hair for example. Is it Kitsch? Maybe. I have to give Leica by reproducing this lens that they go their own way where most other lens manufacturers always want the sharpest, most flawless glass ideal for pixel peeping. I can see that some studio and portrait photographers might see value in this Thambar lens - I probably wouldn't vest in it since I am not a specialized portrait photographer and would rarely make use of such lens. But I enjoy reading and sometimes using lenses which are outside the ridden path. 

[michaelwj]

Surely the reason why the Thambar is so rare now is that is was a commercial failure when released?

I will again voice my preference for a reissue v1 35mm pre-aspherical summilux with a filter thread and a 0.7m minimum focus distance. Please.

[henning]

You may try: to put a sticker on the center of the filter is quite easy.

 

I don't think it will work. The lens design of the Thambar was a failure. Used like a normal lens wide opened it delivered very low contrast and sharpness. This was not acceptable even at this time. Stopped down it was better - but for a lens with lower opening they already had the 4/90 Elmar - so why sell a new lense much more expensive than the Elmar which was almost unusable in the regions you couldn't get with the Elmar and not better than the Elmar when stopped down?

 

Then someone had the idea to use it in a weird way: block the light from the center - where usually lenses are best - and use only the weak outer parts of the front lens. Now you got the very soft "paint" combined with the psychedelic effect of blurring rings in the "bokeh". Now someone who liked this could get pictures like  from late 19th century when some "pictoralists" wanted to make photos which resampled paintings. 

 

Even in the 30s this approach was Kitsch: to look for some outdated style by copying it with technical means for commercial aims. The "pictoralist" approach in the 30s was a nasty slap in the face of what Leica had achieved: Give a tool to the photographer to enable him to look at the world in a neutral way to compse something new by black, white and grey structures. For doing this you need a neutral lens - like the Elmar - not one which intervenes with its own imperfections and subjective pretensions.

 

Now back to the Tele-Elmarit.  You are right that it is much better corrected - and the lenses are coated. Even the weak outer parts of the front lens deliver much more contrast and sharpness than the failed Thambar design. It will not be "soft" but only very weak, no "painting" effects but only harshness and weird disturbances if you do the same as they did with the Thambar 80 years ago. 

 

And further back to the "new Thambar" - allegedly already confirmed: Does anyone expect old, "bad" glass, uncoated, where you have to use a center filter? Of course one could expect a complete new design which achieves the softness and blurs by modern means - still a failure as lens design standards are concerned, but a deliberate one. This would be a completely different lens, having nothing to do with the old Thambar, but perhaps bearing its name.

 

Kitsch again - a locomotive with a steam engine design but with diesel motor.   

 

 

It might have been a commercial failure, but it was not a design failure. It was never intended to compete with the 90 Elmar, but to complement it. Whether or not it, or rather the results from it were 'Kitsch' is a matter of fashion and personal preference. A number of soft focus lenses were created over the years. Rodenstock Imagon lenses were some of the most famous mid 20th century ones, and were copied by Fuji. Almost all large format lens manufacturers had one in their line up if they were in business before 1950, and then as smaller formats became ever more popular the manufacturers of those brought out their versions. Minolta had one, as did Mamiya and some others. Even Tamron had one which I still have: the 70-150/2.8 SP Adaptall. None of them were 'failures'.

 

With more sophisticated computational photography similar effects can now be achieved (iPhone 8+) and in Photoshop, but it was and is hard to create the same balance of sharp outlines, soft rendering away from the centre and controlled haloing that a dedicated soft focus lens can achieve. Whether you like the effect is a completely different matter. I've used the Tamron a bit on a Sony, and am unlikely to reach for it again, but it has its adherents. Today's fashion 'styles' include HDR, shallow depth of field, oversharpened edges with heightened local contrast and eye searing colour saturation. Most of the images that follow these fashions to a noticeable degree are way more annoying to me than most 'soft focus' images of the 1950's and earlier. But fashions will change again.

[NB23]

Thambicron rules

[luigi bertolotti]

It might have been a commercial failure, but it was not a design failure.

I tend to agree... and maybe even not a definitive failure considering its specialized role : figures say that they made 3500 of them... more than half of the Xenons 1,5 50 (same timeframe) , which was also a costly item, but surely much more appealing as a general purpose lens; the Telyt 200, a lens which required indeed a complex set (Visoflex) but is anyway a more "general purpose" lens, was made in fewer items than the Thambar (considering, obviously, the prewar times); the Alpine Elmar, less costly (around 50%), made numbers just a bit higher.... and can be considered another not-so-successful lens. A lens that could play a role rather similar to the Thambar was the Hektor 7,3 f 1.9... and indeed it more than doubled the Thambar's numbers (and, at least from a 1935 catalog, it costed 30% more than the Thambar)

 

Of course, looking at the bodies that Leitz made/sold during Thambar existence, and even considering only the RF coupled models, one can conclude that, roughly, 1,5% of Leica owners had a Thambar, which is a small percentage.

 

As above said by Hennings, "soft" lenses have a small long history of their own and in the '30s (and later, too) were appreciated also to soften skin defects... probably, considering that such "post processing" could need rather long time in darkroom, if made in the printing phase, the "soft" lenses gave to professionals who made all the picture taking/developing/printing by themselves, also an advantage in terms of time.

Edited October 1, 2017 by luigi bertolotti

[michaelwj]

Luigi, I wonder the % of Thambar owners of the subset of 90mm owners? As in, was it a popular 90mm lens or not?

[luigi bertolotti]

Luigi, I wonder the % of Thambar owners of the subset of 90mm owners? As in, was it a popular 90mm lens or not?

Well... by chance is a rather "round" number... about 30.000 Elmar 90 "thin" made in the same timeframe of the Thambar,... and there were surely many "fat" Elmar 90 still around... let'say 5-6000 : the Thambars had something like a 9/10% share of the "90mm market" .. at something around 2 x the price of Elmar

Edited October 1, 2017 by luigi bertolotti

[lct]

No idea about popularity but Thambar was a lens from the 1930's/1940's. At that time, Summicron, Elmarit and Tele-Elmarit 90mm lenses did not exist yet. Elmar 90 was f/4 and faster telephotos were Hektor 73/1.9 and Summarex 85/1.5. All LTM lenses IINW but i have no experience with them so i may be wrong.

Edited October 1, 2017 by lct

[luigi bertolotti]

No idea about popularity but Thambar was a lens from the 1930's/1940's. At that time, Summicron, Elmarit and Tele-Elmarit 90mm lenses did not exist yet. Elmar 90 was f/4 and faster telephotos were Hektor 73/1.9 and Summarex 85/1.5. All LTM lenses IINW but i have no experience with them so i may be wrong.

All correct, lct ... except that Summarex is de facto a postwar item (developed for military in the '40s); during the '30s there were just 2 90s : Elmar and Thambar.

Edited October 1, 2017 by luigi bertolotti

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jdlaing]

All correct, lct ... except that Summarex is de facto a postwar item (developed for military in the '40s); during the '30s there were just 2 90s : Elmar and Thambar.

Which 90 Elmar dates to the 30's?