What's new
DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.

DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Thambar 9022

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
 
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
 
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 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 worth it Simon.

I din't think it was, I was thinking on my 75/1.4 lens that cost me GBP 850 and could not imagine that the slower Thambar would give me better pictures, even at more than three times the price!

regards Simon
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
> [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]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top