Thambar-Crazy

[Susie]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Guys,

 

I must admit I didn't rise to the bait in previous Thambar threads, but can we PLEASE but to bed the ridiculous idea that smearing some Vaseline on a filter will give the same result as a Thambar, whether it is a 1930’s one, such as I have, or the new one, which I would love to own as well, but cannot justify buying.  It is the sort of thing that was suggested in the “everything you want to know about photography” books of the 1970’s. 

 

On a similar vein, I thought/hoped that this forum would also be devoid of  banal statements along the lines "I would buy one of those if only it was a quarter the price".  We all know you wouldn't.  Everyone here knows Leicas can cost a lot, but we still buy and enjoy them for what they are.  If a Thambar is not your cup of tea, fine, but please respect the choice of those who do like them and buy them, just as you’d wish them to do the same to you.

 

Sermon over, best wishes,

 

Susie

[ECohen]

"I would buy one of those if only it was a quarter the price".  We all know you wouldn't.

....Really $1625 US      Where do I sign !!

[derleicaman]

Hi Guys,

 

I must admit I didn't rise to the bait in previous Thambar threads, but can we PLEASE but to bed the ridiculous idea that smearing some Vaseline on a filter will give the same result as a Thambar, whether it is a 1930’s one, such as I have, or the new one, which I would love to own as well, but cannot justify buying.  It is the sort of thing that was suggested in the “everything you want to know about photography” books of the 1970’s. 

 

On a similar vein, I thought/hoped that this forum would also be devoid of  banal statements along the lines "I would buy one of those if only it was a quarter the price".  We all know you wouldn't.  Everyone here knows Leicas can cost a lot, but we still buy and enjoy them for what they are.  If a Thambar is not your cup of tea, fine, but please respect the choice of those who do like them and buy them, just as you’d wish them to do the same to you.

 

Sermon over, best wishes,

 

Susie

Thanks for your post. I too would like to maintain a congenial atmosphere here on our forum. The world is nasty enough as it is without more strife here talking about our common interest/hobby.

 

The Thambar is of interest to a lot of Leica folks. We have the historical interest for the original lens. Max Bereck designed it, and we all respect him for making the Leica a success along with Barnack. Leitz saw enough merit to market it, even though it was to a very small market and it was very costly in its time. Leitz only made 3,000 of them. Now, Leica has a new version very similar to the original. We should be happy they had the cujones to bring it back. Of course, they are not a charity and see a market and a profit. That is what businesses do.

 

I will not be in the market for one as I own one of the originals. But there are plenty of people who are not fortunate enough to have an original and nice, usable ones are hard to find. So if someone wants a new one and can afford it, good for them! I look forward to seeing the results people get with the new version and the old one. I hope it will help me get some decent results with mine.

Edited December 7, 2017 by derleicaman

[lik]

What a tricky lens! Interesting, though. I assume that if you use the centre spot, you have to shoot wide open, otherwise the spot becomes visible in the image?

The center spot definitely works until 6.3.

Closing more makes a big black spot on the image.

Thanks your wishes - it’s a challenge with lot of fun!

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Pro

[michaelwj]

If not a soft focus lens, then what is it?

 

lik, or anyone, video done through the Thambar might be quite interesting.

It's a lens with many uncorrected aberrations. Unlike a soft focus lens, the Thambar still has a plane of high sharpness. Smearing vasoline on the front of your lens will leave you with no sharp focuse plane - a totally different effect.

[lik]

..., ridiculous idea that smearing some Vaseline on a filter will give the same result as a Thambar ...

I absolutely agree - it’s easy to understand that after just a few shots. The Thambar is far beyond.

I have some bokeh-vintage lenses - not bad but definitely not a Thambar.

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's a lens with many uncorrected aberrations. Unlike a soft focus lens, the Thambar still has a plane of high sharpness. Smearing vasoline on the front of your lens will leave you with no sharp focuse plane - a totally different effect.

 

Interesting. In my humble experience all soft-focus lenses are sharper when stopped down. Which lenses do not become sharper (before diffraction)?

 

I would not speak of smearing a lens with vasoline. It's silly.

Edited December 7, 2017 by pico

[thighslapper]

Interesting images .......

 

I have a Petzval 85mm from the original kickstarter run on Lomography ...... gives similar results  ....... with the addition of bizarre OOF elements when the distance between camera, subject and background are equidistant. Stopped down to f8 or so the spherical aberrations vanish and it acts like a sharp portrait lens. This about f3.5 and cropped ....

 

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!

Edited December 7, 2017 by thighslapper

[IkarusJohn]

I have one of those too. I must get it out and try it on the SL. I’ve only used it on the D800 so far.

[michaelwj]

Interesting. In my humble experience all soft-focus lenses are sharper when stopped down. Which lenses do not become sharper (before diffraction)?

 

I would not speak of smearing a lens with vasoline. It's silly.

There is a difference between "sharper stopped down" and "sharp".

The Thambar has a sharp region wide open. There was a photo posted by luigi(?) which was wide open with the Thambar where the eyelashes were pin sharp, but with a surrounding "glow"

[pico]

There is a difference between "sharper stopped down" and "sharp".

The Thambar has a sharp region wide open. There was a photo posted by luigi(?) which was wide open with the Thambar where the eyelashes were pin sharp, but with a surrounding "glow"

 

Sorry, but I cannot find an answer in your response.

[michaelwj]

Sorry, but I cannot find an answer in your response.

I wasn't aware that a rhetorical question required an answer.

[pico]

I wasn't aware that a rhetorical question required an answer.

 

It was not rhetorical, and you know it.

[michaelwj]

It was not rhetorical, and you know it.

Maybe you could make yourself clearer if you have a question?

Edited December 8, 2017 by michaelwj

[cwcheung]

Of course - here you are! 

To be honest - to me it's a bulky luggage piece. 

I don't need this obviously expensive product presentation with the tiny filter section in a useless leather case...

I only keep it in case I want to sell. 

 

Thanks lik.  Similar to 28/5.6 50/0.95 & 50/2 APO's packing (black box with satin lining)

[lik]

Yeah - just space consuming in the cellar - nothing else [emoji28]

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Pro

[lik]

The Thambar has a sharp region wide open.

That’s exactly the point.

 

I also tried to show with the crops of my first pics.

And this is the exciting fact to me.

 

In this respect it also outperforms these Petzval pieces - I have the 58.

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Pro

[thighslapper]

There is a difference between "sharper stopped down" and "sharp".

The Thambar has a sharp region wide open. There was a photo posted by luigi(?) which was wide open with the Thambar where the eyelashes were pin sharp, but with a surrounding "glow"

 

The central portion of the Petzval IS sharp ...... like the Thambar, but the zone of mostly field curvature at f2 is so large that it is very localised to the centre ...... as apertures reduce in size the sharp area increases. 

 

The lenses do produce superfically similar looking images, but by a different method. However I'm not sure the difference is worth the extra expense (a factor of x12).

[michaelwj]

However I'm not sure the difference is worth the extra expense (a factor of x12).

 

 

To me, its not worth any expense, but I'm not going to judge those who think it is and are willing to spend their money enjoying it.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Simon]

Thanks very much for the pics. It’s not to my taste - it just looks way too old-fashioned, which I know is the point. But I’m happy Leica are doing retro lenses. The Summaron 28 is amazing so I look forward to seeing which one they’ll do next.