Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Someone posted a window-lit shot of a sitter on the Thambar Facebook group page yesterday which illustrates the potential of the lens for portraits.

 

Highlights seem to need carefull attention from what I have seen so far. It isn’t a lens for high contrast scenes, the light on the sitter’s chest is blowing in that Facebook example and there are plenty of examples on this thread where highlights have gone way beyond ‘glow’ levels.

 

Seems to be a lens of extremes, outcomes are dictated by numerous physical factors in combination, which is either downright horrible or beautifully artistic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m really close to pulling the trigger on a Thambar.

 

I had a good muck around with one in store on my SL and with an EVF showing the rendering “live” it opens many creative channels. Intriguingly, I found the lens very sharp in the focus plane when you want it to be.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

here is one with 50mm f/2 AA...

 

Albert  :D  :D  :D

This shot tempts me more to buy the 50 APO.

 

Looking at Albert’s comparison images, I have to say that I find the Thambar’s out of focus treatment in many images terribly distracting. Ian’s last flower image is more pleasing, with it’s blurred petals (as opposed to disks). It seems to me, like all photography, I guess, you need to be very careful of your backgrounds with this lens.

 

Is it fair to say that more modern ASPH lenses are more fogiving in this respect?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it fair to say that more modern ASPH lenses are more fogiving in this respect?

 

Following my recent experience with dreadful onion ring bokeh rendering with the 90mm APO ASPH which is apparently inherent to all ASPH lenses, I would say is it fu no.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Following my recent experience with dreadful onion ring bokeh rendering with the 90mm APO ASPH which is apparently inherent to all ASPH lenses, I would say is it fu no.

Interesting. So, perhaps if you like to have subject isolation with pleasing out of focus treatment, you need to understand how the lens performs and be careful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. So, perhaps if you like to have subject isolation with pleasing out of focus treatment, you need to understand how the lens performs and be careful.

 

Yes exactly... like I wrote in the other thread, I first noticed this effect in a set of conditions under which I had never used the lens. That is learning and thanks to others help I now have understanding too. But I also wrote that I'm not using that particular lens for "subject isolation with pleasing out of focus treatment".

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone just bought an original Thambar for £1249 from a well known London dealer … bargain buy. Marked optics but unlikely to compromise imaging. It was listed for 2 weeks before it sold. 

 

dunk 

Edited by dkCambridgeshire
Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone just bought an original Thambar for £1249 from a well known London dealer … bargain buy. Marked optics but unlikely to compromise imaging. It was listed for 2 weeks before it sold. 

 

dunk 

 

So according to google thats currently 1425.25 € ... whow the british pound has been more valueable in the past, wasnt it ? Its not bad at all for the british economy if the pound is weak, though.

 

Relative to the usual prices its a bargain, yes, but in absolute terms its still very expensive for a lens with just 4 elements in 3 groups. I bet for example Voigtländer could produce such a lens for $300 and still make a good profit margin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a reason that lens was "cheap".

I saw the ad and wouldn't have touched that one with a bargepole. IIRC it was missing the filter and hood, and needed to be taken apart for repairs.

ok, you can get a filter made, the hood may not be necessary all the time, but it's the last part that I found scary... in fact due to a post you wrote a few years ago  :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

but in absolute terms its still very expensive for a lens with just 4 elements in 3 groups.

 

Not all elements are equal. :D  The Thambar (either new or old) is not a rational lens purchase so I'm not sure there is any point equating or comparing it with other Leica lenses or lenses from any other manufacturer.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a reason that lens was "cheap".

I saw the ad and wouldn't have touched that one with a bargepole. IIRC it was missing the filter and hood, and needed to be taken apart for repairs.

ok, you can get a filter made, the hood may not be necessary all the time, but it's the last part that I found scary... in fact due to a post you wrote a few years ago  :)

 

I now regret not buying that Thambar listed a few years ago which had glass issues … it would have been a usable lens as is the example listed last week. 

 

 

dunk 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If both old lenses were at Red Dot, I looked at them at the same time as the new Thambar, which I bought.

On the SL, the originals were (to my eye) distinctly lower contrast, and so more difficult to focus. That was the reason I picked the new one - just my preference.

 

I find the new Thambar hard enough to focus on the SL using focus magnification, because of the flare and low contrast wide open. There are not the same problems with the M, obviously, but you have the question of RF focus accuracy at 90mm and f/2.2 - as much discussed with the Apo-Summicron 90. 

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...