Thambar-Crazy

[M9reno]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Albert,

I think a key point with this lens is to avoid background "noise". Your father-in-law's portrait seems to me a case in point. To me I t looks fine - the glow on his hair works particularly nicely - but the hugely distracting bokeh detracts.

Edited March 23, 2018 by M9reno

[Peter H]

Ian, if you're around maybe you can help me, because I don't think I've ever felt so adrift in a thread as this one.

 

I've admired many of your photos in the past and felt that I "get" them. But I haven't seen a photo in this thread (I may have missed some) that I feel couldn't have been improved by using a more standard 90mm lens. Sometimes i find the Thamber photos almost unpleasant to look at. (I don't mean the subjects, of course!) as when you sometimes need to rub your eyes to see clearly.

 

I usually understand the appeal of lenses and photographs that I don't like myself. But I am missing out on something here because I honestly don't get it at all. I'm not being argumentative. I'd appreciate it if you or someone could explain what's going on with this lens that draws them to it, because the photos themselves aren't doing it.

 

It's quite a disconcerting experience.

[JoanP]

I'm one of those strange women who would rather have this lens than a diamond ring. I think it would be a blast to go out in search of possible subjects to make the best use of this gorgeous soft focus glow. Keep posting more pics.

[Keith (M)]

Clearly something of a Marmite lens. I find myself somewhat in the bemused school of thought (ref Peter’s post). One or two images have appealed - the classic b&w 1930s style film studio shots. Apart from those I look and wonder why...

[Paul J]

Ian, if you're around maybe you can help me, because I don't think I've ever felt so adrift in a thread as this one.

 

I've admired many of your photos in the past and felt that I "get" them. But I haven't seen a photo in this thread (I may have missed some) that I feel couldn't have been improved by using a more standard 90mm lens. Sometimes i find the Thamber photos almost unpleasant to look at. (I don't mean the subjects, of course!) as when you sometimes need to rub your eyes to see clearly.

 

I usually understand the appeal of lenses and photographs that I don't like myself. But I am missing out on something here because I honestly don't get it at all. I'm not being argumentative. I'd appreciate it if you or someone could explain what's going on with this lens that draws them to it, because the photos themselves aren't doing it.

 

It's quite a disconcerting experience.

 

 

I have really liked many of the images. But then it tips over to the point of way too much and way too dated. The level of control seems quite unpredictable and dependent on different factors.

 

But I do really like the effect at times, especially when it is subtle. I really like this image series on the leica website - Geisha

 

But to me there are far more cost effective ways of doing this and in a ways that have a lot more control and can be used on all different focal lengths.

 

But the appeal of having it in a lens is great and the quest to tame the beast is an interesting one. I do understand that.

 

I'm just glad it's even there as an option and this is what makes Leica special to me. I still might get one, one day.

Edited March 23, 2018 by Paul J

[ianman]

It is a strange beast indeed. Most of the "old" photos I've seen taken with this lens appeal to me because I like the style that many of them display.

 

There are many, many photographs posted in this thread which I also don't get and do not like at all. But there are a few that have been posted here which I find very nice indeed.

Milan has obviously already mastered the lens to an advanced degree. A couple of photos from Reiner also standout (the gulls (411) and the beach scene (410), for example, whilst not being award winning photos, show some qualities which are (I think) unique to the Thambar, as do some of Wonzo's beach series.

 

I really like the portrait of Ian's daughter (428) which show a very subtle glow.

 

It's obvious that this lens needs to be learned more that "simpler" lenses and I bet that people who do take the time and have the experience to actually learn how it behaves will be rewarded with some breathtakingly beautiful photographs.

As long as the effect is controlled and subtly used, as is mostly the case with any attribute.

 

... I feel couldn't have been improved by using a more standard 90mm lens. ...

 

"Improved" of course is very subjective! Some have shown here that the Thambar can be used as a pretty good "standard" 90mm lens too.

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is a strange beast indeed. Most of the "old" photos I've seen taken with this lens appeal to me because I like the style that many of them display.

 

There are many, many photographs posted in this thread which I also don't get and do not like at all. But there are a few that have been posted here which I find very nice indeed.

Milan has obviously already mastered the lens to an advanced degree. A couple of photos from Reiner also standout (the gulls (411) and the beach scene (410), for example, whilst not being award winning photos, show some qualities which are (I think) unique to the Thambar, as do some of Wonzo's beach series.

 

I really like the portrait of Ian's daughter (428) which show a very subtle glow.

 

It's obvious that this lens needs to be learned more that "simpler" lenses and I bet that people who do take the time and have the experience to actually learn how it behaves will be rewarded with some breathtakingly beautiful photographs.

As long as the effect is controlled and subtly used, as is mostly the case with any attribute.

 

 

"Improved" of course is very subjective! Some have shown here that the Thambar can be used as a pretty good "standard" 90mm lens too.

 

 

 

I agree that "improved" is very subjective, but it's opinions that I'm seeking. 

 

It seems that the thing people like is the "glow".

 

But I am seeing one of two things;  nice photos spoiled by their lack of clarity that, unlike with blurred out-of-focus backgrounds which I'm also not keen on as a rule, these feel more veiled in a way I find frustrating and then irritating. Or I'm seeing photos which are nice despite the lens and not because of any property of the lens that I can discern.

 

I can see that there may be some very subtle effect, and maybe that's what you and others admire, but I do wonder whether in those borderline cases a deft touch in PP could have extracted just as nice an effect with no detriment to the rest of the picture.

 

I also find the colours fairly consistently too pastel in a most unsubtle way, and end up looking too sweet and rather artificial (saccharine?), but that is certainly an extremely subjective judgement!

 

I do not want to be offensive and I hope no one takes it that way. I was interested in this lens when it was first announced, not being familiar with the original, and I'm still interested, not from a potential buyer's perspective, but just as someone who enjoys looking at other people's photos and trying to appreciate them.

[LocalHero1953]

Peter, there is absolutely no reason why you or anyone else ought to like images from this lens, whether taken by masters or not. But I am a bit flummoxed at the idea of explaining why I like what the Thambar does in terms that you might accept.

 

I guess there are some people for whom the only good image is a sharp one, but I've never thought of you as one of those. Nor can one sensibly judge a lens by the quality of the photographer: bad photographs are bad photographs and vice versa - you have to look past that and see what the lens is doing, not the photographer. As for colours, you only have to read this forum for a while to realise that there are actually people out there who like the cartoon colours of the M9 and Kodachrome - I'm happy for them to do so - it takes all sorts.

 

My best attempt at an explanation of my interest in this lens is that, at its best, the lens can create images that appear to have both sharp elements and soft elements, but where the elements appear to overlap and are not spatially distinct (i.e. it's not a sharp area surrounded by a soft area). It's partly related to the low contrast nature of the lens (which allow well-lit contrasty eyes to stand out) and the flare/'glow' that hides detail in naturally low contrast areas like skin. But that's simply a description of what I think the lens does, it's not an explanation of why I think the effect can be attractive, when used well.

 

Someone said that the effects are unpredictable, but I disagree. I think that the effects are predictable, but they vary much more with aperture, focal length, spot filter, highlights and detailed backgrounds etc than, say, the Apo-Summicron 90. It will just take a lot of practice before I* or any photographer can actually predict its behaviour.

 

*Mine's been in Wetzlar for 5 weeks or so, getting recalibrated, so my practice is on hold.

Edited March 23, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[Peter H]

Peter, there is absolutely no reason why you or anyone else ought to like images from this lens, whether taken by masters or not. But I am a bit flummoxed at the idea of explaining why I like what the Thambar does in terms that you might accept.

 

I guess there are some people for whom the only good image is a sharp one, but I've never thought of you as one of those. Nor can one sensibly judge a lens by the quality of the photographer: bad photographs are bad photographs and vice versa - you have to look past that and see what the lens is doing, not the photographer. As for colours, you only have to read this forum for a while to realise that there are actually people out there who like the cartoon colours of the M9 and Kodachrome - I'm happy for them to do so - it takes all sorts.

 

My best attempt at an explanation of my interest in this lens is that, at its best, the lens can create images that appear to have both sharp elements and soft elements, but where the elements appear to overlap and are not spatially distinct (i.e. it's not a sharp area surrounded by a soft area). It's partly related to the low contrast nature of the lens (which allow well-lit contrasty eyes to stand out) and the flare/'glow' that hides detail in naturally low contrast areas like skin. But that's simply a description of what I think the lens does, it's not an explanation of why I think the effect can be attractive, when used well.

 

Someone said that the effects are unpredictable, but I disagree. I think that the effects are predictable, but they vary much more with aperture, focal length, spot filter, highlights and detailed backgrounds etc than, say, the Apo-Summicron 90. It will just take a lot of practice before I* or any photographer can actually predict its behaviour.

 

*Mine's been in Wetzlar for 5 weeks or so, getting recalibrated, so my practice is on hold.

Good points all.

 

I certainly don’t believe all photos should be sharp. Neither do I think I ought to like anything, or that anyone should be able to explain what they like about a lens or a photo, though many often can and do. As you have. And thank you for doing so.

 

But I said earlier that it’s disconcerting because it’s the first time I’ve felt that I can’t find anything to like in a Leica lens, at least from what Ive seen so far, and that includes many lenses that I don’t want to own but can understand why others do. And knowing to some extent the styles of some of the people who have posted photos to this thread, I’m surprised at how different their taste appears to be from what I’d have expected.

 

It’s probably just me not seeing something that others are. I’m curious as to what it is though. You’ve helped a bit but for example, whilst I can understand some people liking cartoon colours, it’s not something I would have associated with most Leica users I know, though I accept that may be an anachronistic point of view, or simply, just wrong!

[ianman]

..., these feel more veiled in a way I find frustrating and then irritating.

 

I wrote a while ago, that this "veil", the mix of sharp / soft, which in turn creates the glow, is what appeals to me. I understand why others wouldn't like them though. And to be honest I think it's better to be frustrated and irritated than to be just indifferent. 

 

I've always liked photographs that do not conform to what seems to be the norm these days. I'm not interested in super sharp, perfect bokeh (I hate that word, I even cringe just writing it!), etc. I used to use HIE (high speed kodak b&w infrared) and a Horizon camera (why makes things easy when you can make 'em difficult!).

[albertknappmd]

Peter, there is absolutely no reason why you or anyone else ought to like images from this lens, whether taken by masters or not. But I am a bit flummoxed at the idea of explaining why I like what the Thambar does in terms that you might accept.

 

I guess there are some people for whom the only good image is a sharp one, but I've never thought of you as one of those. Nor can one sensibly judge a lens by the quality of the photographer: bad photographs are bad photographs and vice versa - you have to look past that and see what the lens is doing, not the photographer. As for colours, you only have to read this forum for a while to realise that there are actually people out there who like the cartoon colours of the M9 and Kodachrome - I'm happy for them to do so - it takes all sorts.

 

My best attempt at an explanation of my interest in this lens is that, at its best, the lens can create images that appear to have both sharp elements and soft elements, but where the elements appear to overlap and are not spatially distinct (i.e. it's not a sharp area surrounded by a soft area). It's partly related to the low contrast nature of the lens (which allow well-lit contrasty eyes to stand out) and the flare/'glow' that hides detail in naturally low contrast areas like skin. But that's simply a description of what I think the lens does, it's not an explanation of why I think the effect can be attractive, when used well.

 

Someone said that the effects are unpredictable, but I disagree. I think that the effects are predictable, but they vary much more with aperture, focal length, spot filter, highlights and detailed backgrounds etc than, say, the Apo-Summicron 90. It will just take a lot of practice before I* or any photographer can actually predict its behaviour.

 

*Mine's been in Wetzlar for 5 weeks or so, getting recalibrated, so my practice is on hold.

I heartedly concur with your insights....

What befell your lens?

Albert     

[mdemeyer]

While I agree that only the images posted by Milan seemed to really work for me (being in the sweet spot of what this lens was made for and also handled by someone who obviously has mastered it), I think part of the issue here is that people are doing early technical exploration with a new tool and sharing the results. That kind of technical exploration, essential to learn the craft of any new tool, rarely intersects with great art (however you define that) and therefore this kind of exploratory, learning work rarely (if ever) creates artistically interesting results.

 

My own practice/exploration images with a new tool are no different... as evidenced by the two Imagon images I posted earlier in this thread. They are mundane and workmanlike (speaking of mine, so please no one take offense) and that’s why I’m not posting any more until I start to get a better handle on that tool.

 

But the reason for posting Thambar images, compelling or not, is because people are asking to learn together. To share exploratory work. That means we’re not waiting for people to have mastered the Thambar and posting only great shots. That will probably be a year from now.

 

So, let’s accept these for what they are. Student work, with some rare and delightful exceptions.

 

Personally, I’m not planning to spend the $$$ for, what for me, isn’t in the sweet spot of my photographic images. But I’m curious enough about the genre to have popped about $600 for a nice 120mm Imagon set to experiment with. Perhaps I’ll get a resulting portriat of my wife that makes it all worthwhile... ;-)

 

Michael

Edited March 24, 2018 by mdemeyer

[LocalHero1953]

I heartedly concur with your insights....

What befell your lens?

Albert     

Nothing happened to it. My first use of it was on the SL, where focusing was fine. When I later tried it on the M240, the focus at around portrait distance was way out (~10cm). Leica has taken both body and lens to check out, but the M is fine with my other lenses, so I suspect the Thambar.

I accept these things happen, even with new lenses, and I know how long they take to fix things. I can't be bothered to get irritated - I have a CL to play with as well

Edited March 24, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[albertknappmd]

Nothing happened to it. My first use of it was on the SL, where focusing was fine. When I later tried it on the M240, the focus at around portrait distance was way out (~10cm). Leica has taken both body and lens to check out, but the M is fine with my other lenses, so I suspect the Thambar.

I accept these things happen, even with new lenses, and I know how long they take to fix things. I can't be bothered to get irritated - I have a CL to play with as well

If the focus was fine on the SL, can't you infer that the M is the issue?

 

Albert     

[LocalHero1953]

If the focus was fine on the SL, can't you infer that the M is the issue?

 

Albert     

No - it's a question of calibration.

On the SL, you are focusing directly by what you see through the lens - so as long as the lens can focus, your images will be fine.

The M, as a rangefinder, focuses indirectly, and relies on a very precise and accurate calibration of the mechanical linkage between the lens and the camera. In my case, either the focusing unit in the lens (the bit that moves when you turn the focus ring) has been fitted slightly out, or the cam follower linkage in the M has slipped out of adjustment.

[wattsy]

Ian, if you're around maybe you can help me, because I don't think I've ever felt so adrift in a thread as this one.

 

I've admired many of your photos in the past and felt that I "get" them. But I haven't seen a photo in this thread (I may have missed some) that I feel couldn't have been improved by using a more standard 90mm lens. Sometimes i find the Thamber photos almost unpleasant to look at. (I don't mean the subjects, of course!) as when you sometimes need to rub your eyes to see clearly.

 

I usually understand the appeal of lenses and photographs that I don't like myself. But I am missing out on something here because I honestly don't get it at all. I'm not being argumentative. I'd appreciate it if you or someone could explain what's going on with this lens that draws them to it, because the photos themselves aren't doing it.

 

It's quite a disconcerting experience.

Peter, these all fair points IMO and thank you for admiring and getting some of my photos “in the past” :-). When I have more time I will try and articulate my own interest in this lens. Edited March 25, 2018 by wattsy

[albertknappmd]

Hello again, 

these days I have really very few opportunity to takes photos as I like - so I'm really sorry - again no portrait. They will come later. 

Nevertheless I just stopped the car to take one and want to share with you one pic at 2.2, about 4 and 6.3 'ish all without center spot filter (let's call it CSF). 

Of course it's not a APO Cron but I think the difference is remarkable and makes it also a choice for 90 mm "as usual" pics. 

I HAVE A SGGESTION...

 

While CSF or Center Spot Filter has been used in the past, Leica refers to the filter as Soft Focus Spot Filter... which can be conveniently stated as SF².

 

The opaque area at the center of the included soft focus spot filter prevents the axial rays, which generate sharp focus, from reaching the sensor – resulting in an even more intense soft focus appearance.

 

This is just a suggestion for all. It is better to keep the name Leica gave it so as to minimize confusion.

 

On another note, I suggest that everyone post photographs in the future should add f/stop and presence/absence SF².    eg.... f/2.4+ or f/4-... It will be very helpful IMHO

 

Albert       

[farnz]

I HAVE A SGGESTION...

 

While CSF or Center Spot Filter has been used in the past, Leica refers to the filter as Soft Focus Spot Filter... which can be conveniently stated as SF².

 

...

I respectfully point out that if you're going to adopt that terminology then to be correct it should be (SF)²

[wattsy]

Centre filter or CSF will do. I don’t think anyone will misunderstand.

Edited March 25, 2018 by wattsy

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lik]

Since I’m German haven’t read the English description of the lens I just used the abbreviation I thought was self explanatory.

 

Unfortunately I cannot use my (SF)2 anyway because me Thambar is in the CS...

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Pro