M
moresby
I just acquired a Thambar 90/2.2 lens in excellent condition. Would like to hear from folks who have used this lens. Regards, Patrick
CI Photocommunity
Register a free account now!
If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
I bought a Thambar a few months ago and have been very pleased. It really does produce a soft gentle image for portraits. Although if you stop it down the image becomes quite sharp. I haven't used the spot filter yet. Given the results I've had without it, I wonder if it will soften the image too much.
I bought a LTM to bayonet adapter which allows the Thambar to work perfectly on my M6 and M7 as well as on the LTM cameras. It was expensive but worth it.
Regards
Steve
I bought a LTM to bayonet adapter which allows the Thambar to work perfectly on my M6 and M7 as well as on the LTM cameras. It was expensive but worth it.
Regards
Steve
H
hektor
Dear Patrick,
I endorse Steve's comments although I do use the spot filter. The irony about this lens is that it cost considerably less that the 9cm Elmar in 1936. If you need a copy of its instruction book I can scan mine for you.
Have fun,
Justin
I endorse Steve's comments although I do use the spot filter. The irony about this lens is that it cost considerably less that the 9cm Elmar in 1936. If you need a copy of its instruction book I can scan mine for you.
Have fun,
Justin
I bought a LTM to bayonet adapter which allows the Thambar to work > perfectly on my M6 and M7 as well as on the LTM cameras. It was > expensive but worth it.
Not wanting to be intrusive, but how expensive was it, I was offered a Thambar the other week at GBP 3,000.
regards
Simon
Not wanting to be intrusive, but how expensive was it, I was offered a Thambar the other week at GBP 3,000.
regards
Simon
H
hektor
Dear Simon,
There is absolutely no comparison. The Thambar was a lens specifically designed for 'portrait' images is a dreamy style en vogue in the thirties.
As to what makes better pictures, I will leave that to others.
Stick to your Summilux.
Justin
There is absolutely no comparison. The Thambar was a lens specifically designed for 'portrait' images is a dreamy style en vogue in the thirties.
As to what makes better pictures, I will leave that to others.
Stick to your Summilux.
Justin
My Thambar cost $1380 US without a spot filter. I managed to find the filter for $95 so $1475 US in total.
I honestly don't think you can have a relevant discussion comparing a modern coated 75mm Summilux and a 1930's uncoated, uncorrected (for spherical aberration) lens created specifically for, as Justin put it, "dreamy portraits".
The Thambar is a piece of history designed to do a specific job probably only of interest to collectors. However I will say that I think the effect it produces is way more subtle than anything a soft filter produces. A poor analogy would be comparing a shot taken through a lace curtain to one taken through a gentle mist. The Thambar appears to me to avoid the artificiality I sometimes see in shots though soft filters.
I could however be trying to justify the money I spent on it!!
The Thambar not better just different.
Must remember to buy food and not old lenses, much healthier!!
Kind regards to all.
Steve
I honestly don't think you can have a relevant discussion comparing a modern coated 75mm Summilux and a 1930's uncoated, uncorrected (for spherical aberration) lens created specifically for, as Justin put it, "dreamy portraits".
The Thambar is a piece of history designed to do a specific job probably only of interest to collectors. However I will say that I think the effect it produces is way more subtle than anything a soft filter produces. A poor analogy would be comparing a shot taken through a lace curtain to one taken through a gentle mist. The Thambar appears to me to avoid the artificiality I sometimes see in shots though soft filters.
I could however be trying to justify the money I spent on it!!
The Thambar not better just different.
Must remember to buy food and not old lenses, much healthier!!
Kind regards to all.
Steve
H
hektor
Steve at US$1475 one can enjoy the lens and its special effect which you descibed better than I.
At UK₤ someone was having a "lend" of Simon.
Cheers,
Justin
At UK₤ someone was having a "lend" of Simon.
Cheers,
Justin
M
moresby
> [I shot a role of film using the Thambar and should have transparencies back today. Looking forward to seeing the results. Lens was a gift, but I see that collectors are willing to pay a fair price for the earlier serial numbers. In any case if I like the results, I'll put some mileage on the lens, I suspect it has been parked for quite some time. Certainly would appreciate a scan of the instruction book if it's not too much trouble. Regards, Patrick]
H
hektor
Dear Patrick,
Will scan and e-mail the instruction book this weekend.
Have fun.
Justin
Will scan and e-mail the instruction book this weekend.
Have fun.
Justin
chrischung
Member
Hi,
I owned a Thambar 90/2.2 for four years. This a portrait lens and produced very lovely image. I found it is more easy to control than Rodenstock Imagon. In fact, the lens is very expensive and this is one of my best Leica collections.
Chris
I owned a Thambar 90/2.2 for four years. This a portrait lens and produced very lovely image. I found it is more easy to control than Rodenstock Imagon. In fact, the lens is very expensive and this is one of my best Leica collections.
Chris
H
hektor
Beautifully done Jacques
