Get Leica 90mm f/2.2 Thamber-M at B&H Photo.
This series assesses the Leica 90mm f/2.2 Thamber-M through f/9 on a far distance scene. results at distance show just how strikingly good today’s $300 lenses are compared to 80-year-old lens designs, although perhaps there were better 90mm lens designs back then, and ones trying to avoid soft focus.
Includes the aperture series f/ 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 3.2, 4.5, 6.3, 9 at sizes up to full camera resolution.
David C writes:
Could it be that you accidentally substituted a jpeg from an old cellphone for the thambar-m image you intended? at least on my screen “soft” doesn’t really go far enough.
DIGLLOYD: a cell phone would be tharper.
Dan M writes in response to my comment “While it is surely a specialty optic, it’s hard to conceive of paying $6500 for a lens designed for inferior performance when world-class performance in a Zeiss Otus costs at most about $4500.”
For those images you posted just now? That’s taking $6,500 out on the front lawn and burning it. Well, maybe pooping on it first, then burning it.
DIGLLOYD: not for Leica collectors—they’re loving it (isn’t that the phrase McDonald’ uses? Which seems appropriate compared to regular Leica glass).
Peter K writes:
This comparison is not completely fair, because in 1930 Leica introduced this LEICA Thambar 90mm/2.2 only as a soft-focus lens and not as a 'normal' lens.
I have to admit that until today I haven’t seen a single picture made with the LEICA Thambar 90mm/2.2 that makes me smile]. In 1931 Leica had a 'normal' LEICA Elmar 90mm/4.0 in their program. You can assume this lens gives different results compared with the LEICA Thambar 90mm/2.2.
DIGLLOYD: also, Leica has single-coated the lens elements on the modern Thamber. Also, an f/4 lens is necessarily better, and indeed the Thambar 90/2.2 improves a lot by f/4, though it is still a very weak performer.
Jason W writes:
I agree with your evaluation of the subject qualities of the Thambar, but couldn't one produce a highly similar diffusion effect with a $20 pro mist filter?
DIGLLOYD: probably the mist filter would be sharper, and different as well, which does not mean less pleasing. I was thinking of vaseline on a filter also.