The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Thambar lens announcement.

V

Vivek

Guest
Am I missing something here?
If you look at the current trends for nostalgic lenses: for example the resurrection of the old Zeiss Biotar and Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan- the modern versions are being sold for several thousands.

The Thambar has always been a most coveted lens in the history of photography.

Very clever move by Leica to cash in on this. It is a honorable way to market something that would be very profitable for them.

I would be interested in their (or a knock off) reflective filter.
 

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
In the first half of the 19th century, the vogue in painting was for very realistic effects — we might call this 'photo-realistic'. This idea was challenged by those who came to be known as Impressionists — and not only did their 'impressions' scandalise the art world, they also painted en plein air rather in a studio.

Photographic lenses, until comparatively recently, were anything but impecable; they suffered from softness, susceptibility to flare, lack of contrast, vignetting etc.

With this resurrection of the Thambar, and other lenses mentioned the above posts, are we seeing a reaction from the 'hyper-real' lenses of today? Lenses that, for practical purposes, have little in the way of defects. Are today's lenses 'too perfect'? Is this history repeating itself?

(Disclaimer: I like impressionist and post-impressionist art — not that I could ever afford an original; I also like the effects that the Thambar produces.)
 
Tell you the truth, I’m much more intrigued by the just announced CV 40/1.2 VM.

This thambar does nothing to me. If I were to buy a 90 right now, I’d search for elmarit-m 90 in a decent condition. It’s fantastic lens & relatively cheap.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Obviously, you are not a fan of sort focus lenses. These lenses, although displaying lots of spherical aberration, are very high resolution, so it is not the same as shooting through a diffuser. The point is Leica can offer a rather rare lens to their customers. The price suggests that they are anticipating it will remain in stock for a while. I would not worry that they will lose their shirt over this. I kind of like manufacturers offering oddball optics, even though I probably would not buy them personally. It makes photography richer.
 
As I was saying, much more intrigued... :toocool:

Don’t want to high jack this thread, so I guess we need to start another one.

Thambar, someone must want it for them to produce it. Chinese collectors?
 

jdphoto

Well-known member
In the first half of the 19th century, the vogue in painting was for very realistic effects — we might call this 'photo-realistic'. This idea was challenged by those who came to be known as Impressionists — and not only did their 'impressions' scandalise the art world, they also painted en plein air rather in a studio.

Photographic lenses, until comparatively recently, were anything but impecable; they suffered from softness, susceptibility to flare, lack of contrast, vignetting etc.

With this resurrection of the Thambar, and other lenses mentioned the above posts, are we seeing a reaction from the 'hyper-real' lenses of today? Lenses that, for practical purposes, have little in the way of defects. Are today's lenses 'too perfect'? Is this history repeating itself?

(Disclaimer: I like impressionist and post-impressionist art — not that I could ever afford an original; I also like the effects that the Thambar produces.)
I completely agree with this. I think that's why film photography is experiencing a resurgence as an art form. I'd love to try this lens on a Leica M3, MP etc.
 
"With this resurrection of the Thambar, and other lenses mentioned the above posts, are we seeing a reaction from the 'hyper-real' lenses of today?"

Actually we're seeing Leica catch on at the tail end of a long revival of Pictorialism. Ever since the publication of Nancy Rexroth's Iowa in 1977, Dianas, Holgas, and Lomos have been student fads and in some hands serious artists' tools. Iowa was republished just this year.

Using Leicas, many of us have shot wide open with 5cm LTM Nikkors or Summarit f1.5s, or with Nocti and ND filters. And you can even order a 'Holga' lens in M mount.


Sort of in the middle, many of us are committed to Mandler lenses, as a way of backing off from 'clinical' Karbe designs.

From this perspective, the T'bar might look like 'too much, too late'?

Kirk

11JewelTrailTangle.jpg

Mandler Noctilux @ f1 on Kolari A7rII
 
Last edited:

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I actually owned an original Thambar back in the day, complete with hood and center "dot" filter to accentuate the effect ;) As I recall, in addition to it being stupid expensive, like Noct price, the actual results were odd in use; some images would be spectacular, but most of mine were meh... (And no, it was NOT even close to being Mandler-esque in signature!) It was also another M lens with an extraordinarily long focus throw, another thing I never cottoned to in M glass, so instead of working it out, I sold after a short dating period as I simply never gelled with it. I suspect had I owned it with a digital M body things would have been different, as I'd have had the available volume of instant feedback to get its intricacies figured out.

My guess is this new one will be a lot of fun to play with; but my ultimate take is the resulting images are not going to be much different than what the $700 85mm Lomo Petzval lens available for most DSLRs delivers. I have one of these currently, and it absolutely creates that "turn of the century" look in landscapes and portraits. And it's relatively easy to focus and see the actual effect real-time on an SLR --- and as much as I love the M, that's one area they lack in... My take is given that one can own the Petzval AND say a new Nikon D850 for about half what the Thambar itself will cost, it would be the smarter way to have fun with early 20th century imaging.

Heck, here's an idea --- if anybody reasonably local gets one of the Thambars, let's meet for a day of shooting and we can produce side-by-side comparisons of the Thambar and Petzval. Could be really interesting!
 

D&A

Well-known member
Generally I have found the artistic value and effects in images created with lenses that intentionally introduce speherical aberations (either under or over coreecting in some controlled fashion), vary greatly depending on lighting. This includes direction of lighting relative to film (sensor) plane, intensity, whether its a point or diffuse light source and of course the apature setting used. A change in any of these factors will greatly alter the effect.

In most soft focus lenses, the amount of speherical aberation is controlled by varying the apature used, although some were designed with a variable soft focus control that could be varied while keeping the apature fixed at a given setting.

Another factor is of course the center spot filter Leica utilized in the Thambar, in order to keep the center core of the image with greater detail in comparison to the outer zones which receive most of the scattered light and thus thr defuse effects of the spherical anerations. Again apature used plays a prominant role.

Years ago I had a Thambar on loan from.a camera store I did considerable work with. I compared it at the time to 3 other soft focus lenses, one of which had a variable soft focus control. Since this was in the film era, the shear number of comparisons were limited.

Shooting the same.subject with each resulted in quite varied results.i cannot say any one lens was superior to the other but appeal was very subjective. The quality and type of lighting had a more pronounced effect more than anything else (aside from apature used). Point light sources were especiallly appealing like a chandelier.in influemcing the character of the image.

The reults are worth it if one strikes it just right but as Jack indicated, it can take.much trial and error and a bit of luck...although the results are far different than those images created by the suggestion of applyiing vasoline to a front filter.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
I completely agree with this. I think that's why film photography is experiencing a resurgence as an art form. I'd love to try this lens on a Leica M3, MP etc.
Agreed, though I'm rather surprised that film has made such a comeback, given that digital processing is so much easier. (Yes, I was taught how to use a darkroom and an enlarger back in the day, and while I enjoyed it, I find digital so much easier for b/w.)

I guess the 'art form' is a move away from a position where 'technical excellence' takes precedence over all other factors — such excellence seems to be very 'sterile' and lacking in 'feeling' at times.
 

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
Apologies in advance if what follows is an idiotic question — I'm just curious.

This new Thambar and the new Summaron 28mm lens both have 6-bit coding. How does an older camera, which I presume doesn't have either in its database, recognise the lens and apply the 'appropriate adjustments'? I can't manually code either in my M240. Am I missing something here?
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
This new Thambar and the new Summaron 28mm lens both have 6-bit coding. How does an older camera, which I presume doesn't have either in its database, recognise the lens and apply the 'appropriate adjustments'? I can't manually code either in my M240. Am I missing something here?
Not silly at all. The last firmware update for the M240 was in April 2016, while the M10 firmware was updated in JUly 2017. So the M10 recognizes the Summaron, but not the M240, and I would be surprised if either can recognize the new Thambar. It will take new firmware, and that has happened in the past.
 

Red735i

Member
I looked up the selling price of old Thambars...... If you had $3K, you could most likely buy the original, with filter.
It takes real brass ones to double that for a new version......

If you want diffused ( not sharp) results, THE cheapest way is to get a set of the Zeiss ( Hasselblad) Softars..... Choose your softness with these...

Just for fun, what soft focus lenses have been made?

Petzval, Thambar, Imagon, ( I think Mamiya had one,Fuji too), Nikon ( 135F2 with diffusion settings), Others??????
 

D&A

Well-known member
There were a whole host of of soft focus lenses made, especially in the SLR film era. In my opinion after extensively using quite a few of these lenses (including the original thambar) and comparing to the softar filters (which are excellent), the results were quite different and one cannot emulate a true soft focus designed lens with its dialed in spherical aberation against softars or diffusion filters nor the often quoted use of vasaline coated filters. Just my opinion (and experience).

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

darr

Well-known member
I looked up the selling price of old Thambars...... If you had $3K, you could most likely buy the original, with filter.
It takes real brass ones to double that for a new version......

If you want diffused ( not sharp) results, THE cheapest way is to get a set of the Zeiss ( Hasselblad) Softars..... Choose your softness with these...

Just for fun, what soft focus lenses have been made?

Petzval, Thambar, Imagon, ( I think Mamiya had one,Fuji too), Nikon ( 135F2 with diffusion settings), Others??????
The best soft focus lens I ever owned was the Cooke PS945. It was based on the first Pinkham & Smith Semi-Achromat lenses made in the late 1890s and a conventional sharp lens. I used Softars for a few years with 500 series V cameras, and they were certainly better than diffusion filters, but the Cooke was the best as it never did mess with the catchlights. I sold it when I sold off my last 4x5 box, and regret it. :(

I think Jack's suggestion is a good one and I hope it comes to be.

Kind regards,
Darr
 
Top