Thambar-Crazy

[mdemeyer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well... not quite ready (or flush enough) to Thambar, but will put a toe in the water with a 120mm Imagon adapted to the M10.

 

Stay tuned...

Edited February 3, 2018 by mdemeyer

[LocalHero1953]

I must admit I'd put this lens right out of my thoughts of late but this Leica blog piece (and now Paul's early evaluation) have me thinking again. In truth, I still don't quite like what I'm seeing but I suspect that what I'm not liking most is the "digitalness" in many of the photographs rather than the "Thambarness". I have a feeling that, used with film, there will be fewer blown out areas of glow, more agreeable colour and a bit more bite in the texture. I particularly like this photo and also find this landscape interesting. I also agree that portraits are probably where the strengths of this lens lie and whilst not everything I have seen is to my taste, I do like this portrait. I guess I will still have to try this lens out at some point.

I wonder how much of the unsatisfactory digitalness, which I recognise even though I gave up film long ago, is down to poor exposure and blown highlights in particular, which are far more likely to happen with digital sensors with inexpert photographers than with film. All my shots were taken in A mode, occasionally with exposure compensation; even without light sources in the frame I would have had to take more care than I did to manage highlights. I suspect autoexposure and sensors that are intolerant of bright highlights are part of the problem.

 

That said, the examples in the second two of your links appear to have big blown highlights  .

Edited February 3, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[Exodies]

I must admit I'd put this lens right out of my thoughts of late but this Leica blog piece (and now Paul's early evaluation) have me thinking again. In truth, I still don't quite like what I'm seeing but I suspect that what I'm not liking most is the "digitalness" in many of the photographs rather than the "Thambarness". I have a feeling that, used with film, there will be fewer blown out areas of glow, more agreeable colour and a bit more bite in the texture. I particularly like this photo and also find this landscape interesting. I also agree that portraits are probably where the strengths of this lens lie and whilst not everything I have seen is to my taste, I do like this portrait. I guess I will still have to try this lens out at some point.

I do like the blue girl but a shame about the socks. They kinda nail her to the ground.

[ianman]

I'd love to see photos from a Monochrom CCD / Thambar combo. I hope Colin has got one up in Glasgow :-)

[tsleica]

I think Thambar is a pro portrait lens and an art lens only..

Happy snappers..are likely to be real disappointed with it..

Maybe I can pick a LN one up in a year or so..from a Thamby purchaser..who is more than glad to bail out..at a big loss..lol..

[Milan_S]

I'd love to see photos from a Monochrom CCD / Thambar combo. I hope Colin has got one up in Glasgow :-)

Check out my photos with the Monochrom CCD and the original Thambar.

Tomorrow I will start with a photo session of the MM CCD and both the old and the new Thambar...

 

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2017/12/14/the-old-leica-thambar-90mm-f2-2-in-the-roaring-twenties-by-milan-swolfs/

 

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not a great one for lens tests, preferring to learn how they perform by using them. With the Thambar though, I feel I need to set some ground rules for myself. I have tested the lens on the SL, CL and M240, at a range of stops and with/without the spot filter.

I chose a still life because my wife can't sit still in the same pose for that length of time.

It is lit with a flash bounced off a brolly above left, at about 60 degrees from the camera. SL and CL shots at ISO100, M240 at ISO200. SL and CL at 1/200s, M240 at 1/180s.

All with manual flash, so there is some variation between shots which I have not tried to adjust.

The focus point is roughly on the base of the tines on the whisk, towards the handle.

All files posted without post processing other than importing as dng to Lightroom - no NR, minimal sharpening. 

This first one is to show that the Thambar can behave like a perfectly respectable lens when it wants to.

 

SL, f/11, no filter

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 February 3, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[LocalHero1953]

Two shots with the SL at f5.6. This is the largest aperture before it starts behaving like a Thambar. With the spot filter, anything smaller gets a fuzzy black central blob.

 

Without filter:

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!

 

With filter

Edited February 3, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[LocalHero1953]

Two shots with the SL at f2.2

 

No filter

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!

 

With filter

[LocalHero1953]

Conclusion (based on what I see on my monitor, which is not necessarily visible here): The amount of flare/haze/glow is similar between shots with and without the spot filter. The spot filter though, acts to reduce visible detail: see the wooden nutcracker and the handle of the knife at f/5.6, even allowing for different scene brightness.

I'll post similar pairs for the CL and M240.

[wattsy]

I wonder how much of the unsatisfactory digitalness, which I recognise even though I gave up film long ago, is down to poor exposure and blown highlights in particular, which are far more likely to happen with digital sensors with inexpert photographers than with film. All my shots were taken in A mode, occasionally with exposure compensation; even without light sources in the frame I would have had to take more care than I did to manage highlights. I suspect autoexposure and sensors that are intolerant of bright highlights are part of the problem.

 

That said, the examples in the second two of your links appear to have big blown highlights  .

 

 

Yes, for sure. The Mark de Paola photographs referenced are of course also digital and I find certain aspects of them troubling (the skin tones in this one are classic M digital 'sunburn'). However, there is enough in the general look that maintains my interest in this lens. I look forward to seeing more of your experimentation with the lens. Who knows, I may still succumb to the itch?

Edited February 3, 2018 by wattsy

[LocalHero1953]

Now the Leica CL.

With the crop sensor, I moved the tripod back to give the same scene.

The still life has been re-arranged between the SL shots and these: I forgot I'd intended to compare the CL and M240, so removed the set and drank the beer (there's always another bottle somewhere).

 

I won't post f/11 without the filter - it just looks like a nice sharp scene.

 

f5.6, no filter

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!

 

f5.6, with filter

[LocalHero1953]

Leica CL, f2.2

 

Without the filter

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!

 

With the filter

[LocalHero1953]

Conclusion: the Thambar behaves the same on the CL as on a full frame sensor, but to a lesser degree

[ECohen]

Anybody else in the mood for a Beer?

[LocalHero1953]

Anybody else in the mood for a Beer?

I certainly needed two to see this through. I am not a natural born tester.

[LocalHero1953]

Finally the M240

This was tricky to frame and focus. In the available light, the Viso/LV was too dark to focus and frame, so I used the rangefinder. At 90, exact framing is a bit hit and miss.

 

First f5.6

Without filter

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!

 

With filter

[LocalHero1953]

Leica M240 

f2.2

 

Without filter

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!

 

With filter

[LocalHero1953]

Conclusion about the Thambar on the M240? none particularly. It works as it does on the SL.

 

I ought to test it with more distant subjects in natural light, and with humans with flash and natural light, but I'll stick to just the SL next time.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Peter H]

I must admit I'd put this lens right out of my thoughts of late but this Leica blog piece (and now Paul's early evaluation) have me thinking again. In truth, I still don't quite like what I'm seeing but I suspect that what I'm not liking most is the "digitalness" in many of the photographs rather than the "Thambarness". I have a feeling that, used with film, there will be fewer blown out areas of glow, more agreeable colour and a bit more bite in the texture. I particularly like this photo and also find this landscape interesting. I also agree that portraits are probably where the strengths of this lens lie and whilst not everything I have seen is to my taste, I do like this portrait. I guess I will still have to try this lens out at some point.

 

I’m finding it really hard to like any of what I’m seeing from this lens, except perhaps for those that I couldn’t distinguish from another lens. I don’t think it’s the digitalness, not for me anyway. When it “glows” it looks contrived and unattractive to my eye, and when it doesn’t, it looks indifferent.