Thambar-Crazy

[ianman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, Arrow said:

Just wonder, if this was shot with some Thambar style lens?

Well I can't say of course, but soft focus lenses were around long before the Thambar, and I believe, were popular with pictorialists like Steichen and George Seeley, and of course in portrait photography. this was before 35mm was available and even after it was, I'm guessing that most known portrait photographers of the time were using large format.

Please note that my knowledge of the history of photography is very limited and this is mainly guesswork.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pico]

1 hour ago, ianman said:

Well I can't say of course, but soft focus lenses were around long before the Thambar,

I wonder if it was because soft focus lenses were simply easier to make.

 

[Arrow]

9 hours ago, ianman said:

Well I can't say of course, but soft focus lenses were around long before the Thambar, and I believe, were popular with pictorialists like Steichen and George Seeley, and of course in portrait photography. this was before 35mm was available and even after it was, I'm guessing that most known portrait photographers of the time were using large format.

Please note that my knowledge of the history of photography is very limited and this is mainly guesswork.

Good point. I find it hard where to fit in the Thambar in aesthetically. When it was introduced to the market in the 1930ies, pictorialism was basically over after 1917. So, why a lens for 35mm format with old-fashioned pictorialist and strait photography rendering properties? Sounds like some "Hipstamatic" approach from the perspective of the time. Small and versatile. Jet, who would be the typical user of the 3000 copies made? 

[ianman]

I'm not suggesting that the Thambar was made for post-pictorialists wannabees, but just mentioned that it was by far not the first or only soft focus lens. As for the buyers of the time, I would guess it was aimed at keen amateurs wanting to get the look of the "movie star" portrait such as the one of Carol Lombar here (second from top). On the other hand maybe Mr Berek just wanted to have a little fun 🙂

Edited November 6, 2018 by ianman

[ianman]

9 hours ago, pico said:

I wonder if it was because soft focus lenses were simply easier to make.

Yes, but are they? A soft focus lens is not a missed focus lens nor is it an unsharp lens. It's the controllable (to a certain degree) combination of the aberrations that create the softness or glow, and a sharp(ish) image that makes this lens intriguing and useful for some.

[Arrow]

inaman, pico,

all I can say, is, it simply is an amazingly complex piece of lens changing it´s character up to f9 within every increment of f-stop.

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

35 minutes ago, Arrow said:

inaman, pico,

all I can say, is, it simply is an amazingly complex piece of lens changing it´s character up to f9 within every increment of f-stop.

That's why it's so strange they made it for the M and not for a through the lens camera. It came out when the SL was already there for two years

[wattsy]

1 hour ago, otto.f said:

That's why it's so strange they made it for the M and not for a through the lens camera. It came out when the SL was already there for two years

Well it is a 'replica' of an old rangefinder lens so the M is the natural mount for the Thambar. M users are also the most likely Leica customers to buy a £5k lens like this (SL native lenses seem to be all about "reference" quality). Besides, making it for the M doesn't stop it being usable on a TTL camera like the SL

Edited November 6, 2018 by wattsy

[LocalHero1953]

3 hours ago, otto.f said:

That's why it's so strange they made it for the M and not for a through the lens camera. It came out when the SL was already there for two years

In an ideal world it would have been made for the SL, which is how I use it. I guess they reckoned it would sell better as an updated replica than as a native SL lens.

[pico]

14 hours ago, ianman said:

Yes, but are they? A soft focus lens is not a missed focus lens nor is it an unsharp lens. It's the controllable (to a certain degree) combination of the aberrations that create the softness or glow, and a sharp(ish) image that makes this lens intriguing and useful for some.

Some soft focus (SF) lenses are such due to their early historical development. Others are made to enhance soft focus; examples are those that encourage unscrewing the front element in various increments. Some photographers have removed the physical limit stops to make such lenses wildly soft in their periphery.

Please don't ask me to plow through the blockade of stuff to my studio 8x10 to specify such a lens.

 

Edited November 7, 2018 by pico

[Arrow]

10 hours ago, wattsy said:

Well it is a 'replica' of an old rangefinder lens so the M is the natural mount for the Thambar. M users are also the most likely Leica customers to buy a £5k lens like this (SL native lenses seem to be all about "reference" quality). Besides, making it for the M doesn't stop it being usable on a TTL camera like the SL

I myself exclusively use it on the SL. Just imagine the Thambar as a L- mount lens: big, no aperture ring, no continuous aperture selection, autofocus. The charm and pleasure would be gone. Also retrofitting to a LTM Leica would be ruled out

[Guest]

On 11/6/2018 at 9:35 AM, ianman said:

Yes, but are they? A soft focus lens is not a missed focus lens nor is it an unsharp lens. It's the controllable (to a certain degree) combination of the aberrations that create the softness or glow, and a sharp(ish) image that makes this lens intriguing and useful for some.

Canon introduced a 85mm F2.8 variable soft focus lens about 30 years ago.About the time of the “new FD” mount. The level of soft focus was adjusted by sliding the lens barrel as on a zoom lens. I enjoyed using the lens but after owning the Thambar ,it had nothing like the potential of the Thambar .I seem to recall Pentax doing something similar to Canon.I am sure that Canon only sold very small quantities and I think that mine was possibly the only one that Park Cameras in Sussex ever sold.

[howiebrou]

On 11/7/2018 at 7:35 AM, LocalHero1953 said:

In an ideal world it would have been made for the SL, which is how I use it. I guess they reckoned it would sell better as an updated replica than as a native SL lens.

Has anyone tried the Thambar on the SL? That might be an interesting combination? Apologies in advance if i missed comments on this topic.

Edited November 8, 2018 by howiebrou

[LocalHero1953]

Yes, as I wrote, that is how I usually use it. Focusing is not as easy as a rangefinder because of the lower inherent contrast of the lens, but using focus magnification it is more reliable - if you see what I mean. Rangefinder focusing at 90mm wide open requires a lot of care because of the thin DoF, and it is easy to get it wrong. Portraits in particular miss that special something from the Thambar if the eyes are not pin-sharp. I prefer to do this with the WYSIWYG EVF of the SL.

Edit:

Another reason for preferring the SL is the WYSIWYG exposure in the EVF. The Thambar flares quite easily around highlights (that's partly how it creates its effects) and I prefer to underexpose more than usual to keep them under control, both by direct viewing and by using the histogram in the EVF.

Of course you can use the visoflex on the M, but since I have the SL anyway I don't bother. 

Edited November 8, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[LichtUndDunkelheit]

Err.

No EVF or digital camera backside monitor (which mostly is the exact same) is actually WYSIWYG. For example they arent corrected for color, they have limited dynamic range and often also increased noise, they can only show a limited amount of shutter speeds and they cannot predict the effect of flash.

In the sum they are pretty much as "WYSIWYG" as optical viewfinders. Well, at optical viewfinders of DSLRs.

Specifically using magnification is not WYSIWYG at all, but an isolated display of limited information about the final image.

 

[howiebrou]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Yes, as I wrote, that is how I usually use it. Focusing is not as easy as a rangefinder because of the lower inherent contrast of the lens, but using focus magnification it is more reliable - if you see what I mean. Rangefinder focusing at 90mm wide open requires a lot of care because of the thin DoF, and it is easy to get it wrong. Portraits in particular miss that special something from the Thambar if the eyes are not pin-sharp. I prefer to do this with the WYSIWYG EVF of the SL.

Edit:

Another reason for preferring the SL is the WYSIWYG exposure in the EVF. The Thambar flares quite easily around highlights (that's partly how it creates its effects) and I prefer to underexpose more than usual to keep them under control, both by direct viewing and by using the histogram in the EVF.

Of course you can use the visoflex on the M, but since I have the SL anyway I don't bother. 

Thanks.

[LocalHero1953]

17 minutes ago, LichtUndDunkelheit said:

Err.

No EVF or digital camera backside monitor (which mostly is the exact same) is actually WYSIWYG. For example they arent corrected for color, they have limited dynamic range and often also increased noise, they can only show a limited amount of shutter speeds and they cannot predict the effect of flash.

In the sum they are pretty much as "WYSIWYG" as optical viewfinders. Well, at optical viewfinders of DSLRs.

Specifically using magnification is not WYSIWYG at all, but an isolated display of limited information about the final image.

 

I agree with all your comments except where bolded. No, EVFs are only partly corrected for colour and are not as precise or accurate a raw file converted on a PC monitor, but in practical terms the SL EVF is near enough WYSIWYG compared to an optical viewfinder to allow you to judge exposure, focus and DoF. The OVF of a rangefinder gives a fixed brightness and focus view (apart from the rf patch). The OVF of a DSLR shows DoF for M-lenses, but has no exposure-dependent brightness (nor histogram).

On the SL in M-mode (and manual ISO), with M-lenses, you are viewing at the actual focus and aperture setting, and the screen brightness, blinkies and histogram adjust according to your manually-set controls.

I'm not trying to argue for rangefinder vs EVF here, I'm just explaining the practical reasons why I prefer to use the SL for my Thambar, not my M.

[LichtUndDunkelheit]

You cant neither see focus and even less so depth of field on an EVF with WYSIWYG functionality.

What you talk about is the various ways in which an EVF can offer to nail focus and to display the DoF, such as magnification, focus peaking, and on Fujifilm cameras digital split screen and digital micro prism. Focus peaking also makes depth of field visible. Thats not WYSIWYG though, thats an extra display of information.

About exposure, you mention a histogram and thats *also* not WYSIWYG.

The only things that you can WYSIWYG on an EVF is white balance, which is pretty irrelevant if you shoot raw anyway and can be checked on any digital camera by taking an image and chimping it, and exposure which only works within limitations.

I repeat my point. EVF are in no way different from the backside monitor of any digital camera. Neither offers WYSIWYG.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ianman]

I’m pretty sure the EVF - and of course screen - on my XPro-2 is WYSIWYG for both focus and dof!

[laowai_]

On 11/6/2018 at 3:35 AM, ianman said:

Yes, but are they? A soft focus lens is not a missed focus lens nor is it an unsharp lens. It's the controllable (to a certain degree) combination of the aberrations that create the softness or glow, and a sharp(ish) image that makes this lens intriguing and useful for some.

I wonder if the Thambar might have been a side effect of some engineer at Leica messing with Fourier optics.