THC, no, not that kind. Taylor-Hobson-Cooke

[Dralowid]

Well here's a rough LTM one on Ebay as we speak, 2" Anastigmat. This I think was normally found on Reids.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/284814356470?ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Well here's a rough LTM one on Ebay as we speak, 2" Anastigmat. This I think was normally found on Reids.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/284814356470?ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649

So it is the same type of lens as the Taylor-Hobson-Cooke, then? After I repaired and tested a Reid & Sigrist a few years ago, I thought its 2 inch Taylor-Hobson lens was very good with excellent build quality. A photo of one of our Border Collies I made using the Reid and its lens it is still a favourite of her.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Has anyone information on the Leica L-mount to Leica M-mount or LTM conversion adapter?

A few years ago Leica-M conversions of the lens were sold by Breguet in Tokyo. There is also a thread about the lens on Flickr (Taylor & Hobson Cooke Amotal Anastigmat 2inch(50mm) F2.0). Just look on eBay for availability.

Erik.

 

[furcafe]

I'm jonesing for an Amotal again and I have just gone through your photos and notice that they, and those taken by others, seem to look like cinema color, shading and definition. I know cinema gooses the audio a bit in the voice range. Do cinema lenses slightly emphasize colors in the flesh tone range? Can it be done with all the various skin tones? Is there some spillover from THC cinema lenses into photo lenses? Does anyone know?

Putting aside post-processing, my experience is that uncoated & older single-coated lenses tend to have a warmer palette than "modern" (1960s-today) glass, which is friendlier to skin tones & may account for the "cinema color" that you're referencing. I know nothing about the history of the THC company other than what's on the 'net (Cooke Optics is now split off from Taylor Hobson, & no longer has historical info on their site, so you might shoot them an email), but I don't believe it's a big stretch to assume that when the company made both still & cinema lenses that the same designs used in both lines shared the same "look".

 

[furcafe]

Has anyone information on the Leica L-mount to Leica M-mount or LTM conversion adapter?

Not sure what you mean by "conversion adapter". LTM to M adapters are easily found.

 

[furcafe]

Well here's a rough LTM one on Ebay as we speak, 2" Anastigmat. This I think was normally found on Reids.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/284814356...53.m1438.l2649

So it is the same type of lens as the Taylor-Hobson-Cooke, then? After I repaired and tested a Reid & Sigrist a few years ago, I thought its 2 inch Taylor-Hobson lens was very good with excellent build quality. A photo of one of our Border Collies I made using the Reid and its lens it is still a favourite of her.

I'm not sure if the Taylor-Hobson Anastigmat (some of my photos w/that lens here) is the same formula as the Taylor, Taylor, & Hobson Cooke Amotal Anastigmat, though I would be hard-pressed to tell the difference in photos taken w/them. There is at least 1 other thread on that lens.

 

[boojum]

Not sure what you mean by "conversion adapter". LTM to M adapters are easily found.

I think the problem here is naming. I am looking for an adapter for a L THC to fit as an LTM or M. There are several going M to L.

 

[boojum]

Well here's a rough LTM one on Ebay as we speak, 2" Anastigmat. This I think was normally found on Reids.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/284814356470?ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649

As little as I know about this subject I will stick with the Amotal. What I have seen of the images it produces makes me kind of yearn for one. It seems to have some color magic, Cooke promotes this as "The Cooke Look" and rightly so. They can be very sweet. I like my old Jupiters which do color well and also have good skin tones. But I have not seen tones like furcafe is getting. I wonder how much is film vs digital. OTOH there are some nice images in digital so I may just screw my heirs out of some more money. They'd only spend it foolishly anyway, on stuff like cameras and lenses.

 

[furcafe]

I think the problem here is naming. I am looking for an adapter for a L THC to fit as an LTM or M. There are several going M to L.

If it's an LTM Amotal, it's easy to get a LTM-M adapter from Cameraquest, B&H, eBay, etc. to mount it on a M-mount body. Adapters going the other way are rare, because the LTM lens can't focus to infinity on an M body (due to flange focal distance difference between L & M bodies) & the adapters were meant for close-up/macro setup like a BEOON.

 

[boojum]

If it's an LTM Amotal, it's easy to get a LTM-M adapter from Cameraquest, B&H, eBay, etc. to mount it on a M-mount body. Adapters going the other way are rare, because the LTM lens can't focus to infinity on an M body (due to flange focal distance difference between L & M bodies) & the adapters were meant for close-up/macro setup like a BEOON.

I have found an L mount lens. Getting it to fit on an M camera seemed difficult but there is a mount for sale on eBay for <$30. I have a bunch of old LTM's with the M adapters on them, no problem there. Now I have to suss out whether this L mount is worth the chance purchase. There is only one look at the lens, wide open, front to back. You folks with them have either all gotten the perfect light or the lens is good. I'm guessing the latter.

I know the Flickr group. Some or your stuff is up there but there is no discussion. So I really appreciate what you folks are doing to help me with this. I really love my Sony A7 with its lenses but the M9 with a Jupiter 8 is hard to beat for color and shading. And the Amotal is that much better.

Here is the adapter I am looking for and have found: https://www.ebay.com/itm/28232540829...pid=7007445221

And to make this all the more confusing the lens is a "Cooke Amotal" that is "Made by Taylor Taylor Hobson." I believe "Amotal" is the key word here.

 

[furcafe]

I have found an L mount lens. Getting it to fit on an M camera seemed difficult but there is a mount for sale on eBay for <$30. I have a bunch of old LTM's with the M adapters on them, no problem there. Now I have to suss out whether this L mount is worth the chance purchase. There is only one look at the lens, wide open, front to back. You folks with them have either all gotten the perfect light or the lens is good. I'm guessing the latter.

I know the Flickr group. Some or your stuff is up there but there is no discussion. So I really appreciate what you folks are doing to help me with this. I really love my Sony A7 with its lenses but the M9 with a Jupiter 8 is hard to beat for color and shading. And the Amotal is that much better.

Here is the adapter I am looking for and have found: https://www.ebay.com/itm/28232540829...pid=7007445221

And to make this all the more confusing the lens is a "Cooke Amotal" that is "Made by Taylor Taylor Hobson." I believe "Amotal" is the key word here.

So you found an M42 Amotal, not a LTM? The adapter on eBay is for an M42 screwmount lens, not LTM/Leica screwmount (which is also called L39). If you have an LTM Amotal, then your other LTM-M adapters will work fine. Most of the old Foton Amotals were converted to LTM, but some were also converted to M42 (& there are a couple on eBay).

 

[boojum]

So you found an M42 Amotal, not a LTM? The adapter on eBay is for an M42 screwmount lens, not LTM/Leica screwmount (which is also called L39). If you have an LTM Amotal, then your other LTM-M adapters will work fine. Most of the old Foton Amotals were converted to LTM, but some were also converted to M42 (& there are a couple on eBay).

OK, the lens on eBay is listed as "Taylor Hobson 2/2 Inch Amotal Cooke for Leica L mount w. coupling f. RF-" If this is "L Mount" then it is M42 if I understand this correctly and the eBay L to M adapter will work. I have queried the seller about the lens condition, dust, mold, fungus, scratches, and how well the focus and iris rings work. I will press him on the mount when I get a response. I really would like to have a good working Amotal.

 

[dexdog]

Well here's a rough LTM one on Ebay as we speak, 2" Anastigmat. This I think was normally found on Reids.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/284814356...53.m1438.l2649

Wow, diplomatic of you to describe this camera as "rough". I woulda said scary given what appears to be corrosion on screw heads and other areas. Even in this poor shape it is 360 UK pounds with over a week to go. I assume that lens barrel is aluminum/aluminium, wonder if the lens would clean up well. I will watch this one for entertainment value

 

[Dralowid]

For what it is worth IAOC inscribed on the base of the camera may be Indian Army Ordnance Corps...

 

[boojum]

For what it is worth IAOC inscribed on the base of the camera may be Indian Army Ordnance Corps...

Interesting footnote.

 

[boojum]

These lenses are confusing, at least confusing to me. The Amotal is "Anastigmat" and there is also a THC "Anastigmat" that is not an Amotal. Can anyone tell me the connection if there is one?

 

[boojum]

If any others are interested here is what I lifted from the photo.net bulletin board:

"To answer your question, here's what The Lens Collector's Vade Mecum says about your lens:

'Amotal f2.0 50mm This was TTH's first lens for 24x36mm and is an item of major interest. It seems to have occurred in at least 3 and probably 4 versions as follows.

(a) This was designed as the standard lens for the Foton. These were ELC coated, and this was a fine lens but the buyers did not respond to the T-speed engraving used. A Foton mounted example is No300,768. Next there was a series with both T and F stops, described as 'a jungle of numbers,' an early number being No297,28x. Thus the range can overlap real Foton numbers. Late examples are just in normal f-stops. No 300,54x was a late one and was remounted in Italy for M39x26 in a very soft alloy mount. The optic was made on 27/09/1947. Some 16,000 Fotons were said to have been made before production stopped suddenly. (The camera price was very high at $700, later $500, so that sales were limited apart from any question of the iris engraving.) This seems to have left a supply of Amotals in the production line and lead to some 3 variants. First, Peerless in New York arranged for the USA excess supply to be remounted in Italy (some only are engraved 'Made in Italy')and sold off for M39x26TPI ie Leica. Thus it is a lens most easily found in USA. This mount occurs in two or more like three versions recognized by enthusiasts, but with the lens heads which seem to be the same type, with f2 engraving not T stops.'"

 

[boojum]

There are folks here who know this Amotal lens so I am asking your help. The early Foton Amotals were coated, ELC. The "ELC" is engraved on the front of the lens. I assume the coated is better than the uncoated which follow. And the early Foton Amotals had "T" stops rather than "F." On these two factors I would assume an ELC with T stops would be best, followed by the T and F, followed by the F so long as they are coated (ELC). And an M39 is going to be easier to live with than an M42 as it is a simpler one piece package. These factors are on an "all things being equal" basis. Dust, mold, fungus, scratches and so on will change the picture. No pun intended. OK, a little bit intended. LOL

Please point out any errors.

 

[boojum]

It's academic now. I took the plunge on an ELC with good exterior and the word of the seller that the lens imperfections are cleaning marks not scratches. I have 30 days to evaluate the lens. Last lens, I promise.

 

[Larry H-L]

I am only familiar with what I have, an ELC coated LTM mount, f-stops. The coating is blue and has held up well. I would think that t-stop lenses were made for movie cameras?