Jump to content

LEICA THAMBAR-M 1:2.2/90 officially announced


LUF Admin

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2.2 - 2.6 or 9 - 25 (values in white: for use with the associated center spot filter)

2.3 - 6.3 (values in red: for use without the associated center spot filter)

Presumably Leica have got this the wrong way around? I’d have thought the values in white are for use without the filter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

# wattsy:

 

You are right.

 

In the longer text on the Leica website it's described correctly:

 

The red scale applies when the center spot filter is in place, which diminishes the effective aperture

of the lens – for example, from 2.2 to 2.3 when wide open. When working without the center spot filter, the white aperture scale is used.

 

The "technical details" which say the opposite are wrong. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the irony of this, but I am disappointed with Leica's corrected

spherical aberration. Desirable aberration is fairly common in early MF and

LF lenses.

 

Imagine that - Leica did not replicate desirable defects or add to soft focus

at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... it's Andreas that made a little confusion... 

 

No, he just copied the text from the Leica website, which is wrong:

 

Quote:

 

Aperture

 

No detent positions

2.2 - 2.6 or 9 - 25 (values in white: for use with the associated center spot filter)/2.3 - 6.3 (values in red: for use without the associated center spot filter)

 

P.S. The Italian version of the website is strange:

 

Nessuna posizione di ritenuta

2,2 - 2,6 o 9 - 25 (valori in bianco: da usare con il filtro a spot centrale in dotazione)/2,3 - 6,3 (valori in rosso: da usare il filtro a spot centrale in dotazione)

 

The German version omits the passage about the white and red aperture indices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

 

I must admit I am not a great fan of colour photos taken with a Thambar, but either with black and white film, or particularly these days with a Monochrom I think it can give beautiful photos - with a suitable subject.

 

The instructions with the 1930's Thambar  say not to have a complex background and to keep the contrast low for best results, which will confound the boke camp.

 

But I won't be buying a new one; I think they belong to a different age, but one that is still worth investigating.

 

Susie

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, he just copied the text from the Leica website, which is wrong:

 

Quote:

 

Aperture

 

No detent positions

2.2 - 2.6 or 9 - 25 (values in white: for use with the associated center spot filter)/2.3 - 6.3 (values in red: for use without the associated center spot filter)

 

...fun and almost incredible error... :D (and the italian writing adds confusion)

 

btw... I wonder if they'll publish MTF graphs... has anyone some info about ?

 

Another detail... they have copied exactly the f scale(s) of the original Thambar (White values "jump" from 2,6 to 9)... or better to say, the MOST COMMON f scale(s)... I seem to remember that some of the first Thambars had a slightly different scale...  maybe with only red values in the top apertures... or only with f 2.2 in White... can't remember well (and haven't examples to show, I think.)..but am almost sure of this...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Luigi,

 

On a 1938 Thambar:

 

The white scale goes; 2.2  2.4  2.6  9  12.5  18  25

The red scale goes    2.3  2.5  2.8  3.2  4.5  6.3

 

You cannot use the centre filter below 6.3 as the aperture is then smaller than the silvered centre.

 

Susie

 

(Of course for a beautiful and "plastic" rendering you cannot beat the Mountain Elmar!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Luigi,

 

On a 1938 Thambar:

 

The white scale goes; 2.2  2.4  2.6  9  12.5  18  25

The red scale goes    2.3  2.5  2.8  3.2  4.5  6.3

 

You cannot use the centre filter below 6.3 as the aperture is then smaller than the silvered centre.

 

Susie

 

(Of course for a beautiful and "plastic" rendering you cannot beat the Mountain Elmar!)

Yes.. those are the "standard" scales... but I meant that they hadn't been always like this...

 

... and I did remember well B) ... I thought not to have examples.. but my archive is huge and quick to search...

 

1) Original brochure (on announcement, I suppose... 1935)  : two distinct scales, not different values for the same setting (apart wide open)

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

2) An item of the first batch (# 226120 ... ebay item of several years ago... ) ... the one I remembered vaguely... only 2.2 as "White" value in wide apertures.

 

 

.. and Lager confirms : ..." At least three versions of the dual scale exist : Leitz changed the scale as experience with the Thambar widened"...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was interested to hear of the revival of this exotic creature. I wonder if it will appeal to present-day professional portraitists (and rich amateurs, of course), or instead slide into the 'must own as it's expensive' category? In the words of the old Focal Leica guide, 'Considerable experience is required to master its use, but it yields effects almost impossible by other means'. Presumably, take-up in its original form was limited, so will that be the case today too?

 

It's not something I could ever own myself. Even if I needed such a thoroughbred, I've perforce always been at the Elmar/Summarit end of the 90mm spectrum. I did once get fond of an 85mm Steinheil Culminar on my first screw Leicas back in the late 1960s, but alas I traded it a long time ago. It wasn't so much a soft lens as a low contrast one - very sweet and gentle, as it were.

 

[Thinks out loud] Would there be a case for reintroducing some other classics in modern dress, perhaps at the everyday end of the M lens family - Summars, Hektors and all, in a nice modern coded mount? All right, all right - it's just me, then.

 

Incidentally, speaking of legends, does the price of the new Thambar include a geiger counter? :)

 

Steve

These lenses worked and were attractive for a very specific scenario - to produce the distinctive glowing portrait characteristic of Hollywood and glamour between the wars. To be more specific, it is a combination of sharpness, low contrast and highlight flare that can be achieved with vaseline (etc) but not easily. It works well with faces which are older and more wrinkly, or with complexions that are not as perfect as modern cosmetics can make them. The Hektor 7.3 does this, but the Thambar does it more, and was developed with the notion of controlling the effects by use of aperture and spot filters. I guess they didn't sell many because there were a limited number of photographers trying to achieve this effect, and optical development last century was looking for the sharp, low flare and low distortion holy grail. We now have that (Apo-Summicron-M 90), so I suspect there will be plenty of people now wanting this lens (rather fewer willing to pay for it) to achieve the nostalgic portrait look, and perhaps still to flatter mature skin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not my thing, really.

 

I'm not particularly fond of the 90mm focal length (I can't explain why); I have 90mm covered with both the SL 24-90 & 90-280; and I really dislike the out of focus treatment with this lens.  But, I like the fact that Leica has remade this unusual lens; much as I like the 28 Summaron.

 

I wonder if they'll remake other legacy lenses like the Summitars and the like ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a polite guy, but I'll say that the images in that gallery do the Thambar no favours at all. Where are the portraits? (which is what the lens was designed and used for originally).

 

Agreed, where are the signature portraits that would show off the Thambar's strength?

 

It seems well-suited to those who would like to replicate the 'David Hamilton look'.  (I'm certainly not suggesting replicating similar subject matter though.)

 

Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

btw... I wonder if they'll publish MTF graphs... has anyone some info about ?

 

"People interested in the Thambar" and "people who pay attention to MTF graphs" would seem to be mutually exclusive groups.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be curious to see some pictures made without the central spot filter. I believe this might make the centre area quite sharp with uncorrected edges, maybe something like the Zeiss c-sonnar 1,5/50 at wide apertures. This would increase the all-round usefulness of the lens to me. I shall wait with bated breath...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess they didn't sell many because there were a limited number of photographers trying to achieve this effect

 

 

I suspect it didn't sell well because of a limited number of photographers trying to achieve that effect using 35mm film. I can't imagine there were many portrait photographers or studios who would have considered using such a miniature format and the price of this lens was beyond the means of most enthusiasts.

 

Incidentally, there are some interesting portrait examples on this Leica page here. I think the marketing of this lens is quite clever. In addition to the collector crowd (the lens looks beautifully made and comes in an attractive package with a fine quality leather case), Leica has avoided as far as possible the naff possibilities of this lens and positioned it alongside the "dreamy" fine art photography, often (though not exclusively) coming out of Korea, Japan and China in recent years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...