Jump to content

Recommended Posts

x

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'). 

I like that portrait, what I find interesting is the mix of soft areas and sharp (her hair) areas, making it very dreamy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Truthfully..I cant imagine this lens will be very popular...esp for $6500-..even at $4500-..or ...even $3500-..

Just not a mass market Leica lens..

Unless this is a special order lens only..I would think they would languish on dealers shelves for a long time..until the 3000 of them are made..and then there will be the used market..

Link to post
Share on other sites

London Embankment. A typical shot with small light sources or specular highlights in the frame, producing this ugly bubble bokeh. IMO to be avoided at all costs unless you like Candy Crush Saga or are trying to entertain your grandchildren. In shots with a 'normal' lens, I am often distracted by light sources and highlights in the background; this lens will leave me in no doubt about the errors of my ways.

attachicon.gifuntitled 02-02-18 -21.jpg

 

London South Bank. Once one forgets about camera club sharpness, the impressionistic effect may work.

attachicon.gifuntitled 02-02-18 -25.jpg

 

 

I don't dislike the "Candy Crush" look quite as much as I think I should. I still have this idea that there is a sweet spot somewhere (maybe stopped down a little and without the filter) where this lens will do interesting things but I can't bring myself to spend £5000 to disabuse myself of that notion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife consented to be my model for a sequence of portrait shots in natural light. She is seated close to a large window; the light is overcast but the sun kept breaking through, although it was more or less similar throughout this set. Her serious look is because she was watching for the sun over my shoulder.

All shot on the SL at ISO 400, A mode, centre-weighted exposure, auto WB. Focus is on the eyes, using focus magnification.

I did a full sequence at all apertures with and without the spot filter, but I'm only posting here at f5.6 and f2.2. The only edits are a slight adjustment of WB and cropping to 5x4 aspect ratio.

 

f5.6, no spot 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 spot filter

Edited by LocalHero1953
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

And the same again at f2.2

 

f2.2, no spot 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!

 

f2.2, with spot filter

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Conclusions.

 

1. I would have to be fairly desperate to want to use the Thambar wide open with the spot filter for portraits. You lose most detail and gain maximum fog.

 

2. This is a versatile lens. Stopped down below f4, without (and to a lesser extent with) the spot filter, it is a perfectly respectable portrait lens, a bit low in contrast, without the eye-watering sharpness of the Apo-Summicron-M 90 (and probably the SL version). As you open it up without the spot filter you start to get the 'dreaminess' - a bit glowing (or foggy if you prefer!), but still with detail where you want it.

 

3. Manual focus through the EVF wide open with the spot filter is difficult - even with focus magnification it can be difficult to see when you have it.

 

4. So far, the Thambar is behaving as I expected of a lens with spherical aberrations towards its edges: if you only use the middle bit (stopped down, no spot) then you get a nice sharp image. If you only use the outer bit (wide open, spot filter), you get a foggy, blurred image without detail. In between (cropping the outer parts with the aperture, and the inner parts with the spot filter) you get different and interesting combinations of glow/fog and detail.

 

I shall do some further tests with flash, if she'll let me. TBH, she's as curious about this lens as I am.

Edited by LocalHero1953
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm getting the impression, Paul, that the spot filter is something perhaps best left in the box.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I might do that, but it might also have a value in some cases.

Portraiture is why I bought the lens, and those I have taken have avoided light sources and specular highlights in the frame. Such highlights might be where the spot has its own particular effect  - which might be unattractive in a portrait (unless a useful part of the composition) but acceptable elsewhere.

Edited by LocalHero1953
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another practical issue, the penalty of a retro design.

The focusing lens barrel assembly, including the aperture ring, all rotates with the focus ring. So when you turn the aperture ring to one of the end stops, you can accidentally adjust focus. This may be why on my Hektor 7.3cm (where I never noticed the problem), as well as on the two original Thambars I tried on Friday, all have very loose aperture rings and stiff focus rings.

Edited by LocalHero1953
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was lucky to receive my Thambar one day before we went on holidays. It`s a beautiful and perfectly built lens. People often say, it is a portrait lens. It is much more than this, even much more versatile, than I had expected ! After using the lens for two weeks, I don`t really know, what it can`t be used for. It is a soft and dreamy lens wide open and very sharp when stopped down. Even in sunlight I could never realize flair or CA, even if I held the lens directly into the sun. It also turned out to be my wifes favourite lens after she found out that she seems to look even younger on pictures made with the Thambar – which might be a great argument for those, who still are in trouble to convince their wifes on this expenditure.... :) 

 

First let me show you a few pictures, which were shot wide open or stopped down just a little, mostly without filter:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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