thypoch.com/simera-50mm

boojum

boojum

Ignoble Miscreant
Local time
7:06 AM
Joined
Jan 23, 2021
Messages
4,414
Location
NW Oregon, USA
View My Gallery
OK, Thypoch Simera has this new lens coming out, pre-order if you wish, an f/1.4 that is allegedly very much Summilux like and price very much un-Summilix like. The images I have seen comparing the two make the Simera look pretty good and the pre-order price of US$749 is just a little bit painful. It seems a good lens and at a good price. I have some just great 50's and need talent more than gear, but . . .

Anyone besides me have an opinion on this new yet-to-be-released lens?
 
thypoch.com

Thypoch | Simera 50mm f/1.4 | Full-frame Prime Photo Lens

Thypoch Simera 50mm f/1.4 features a minimum focusing distance of 0.45m, breaking the limit of 0.7m of most rangefinder lenses.
thypoch.com thypoch.com

For $750: it's double what I paid for my Voigtlander Nokton 50/1.5 asph v1. About the same as what you can my the Nokton-M v2 50/1.5 asph new, from Cameraquest.

I see prices on TTArtisan and 7Artisan dropping after 2 years on the market on Ebay. I had a seller offer of $300 for a 7Art 75/1.25, which I bought new at $450.

Wait for hands-on reviews, and wait 2 years to get at a greatly reduced price. My 50/0.95 TTArt Aspheric was $525 new from Popflash.
 
What drove me was a hands-on on YT and the fellow was much impressed. But OTOH I have some very nice lenses as it is now. I have one by me as I type, a Cooke, I am packing up to mail off. It, the CZJ and the SBS are a great trio of fifties. And I have a nice pair of Canon LTM's, the f.4 and the 1.8, both good lenses. I often have to remind myself of the huge gap between want and need.
 
boojum said:
What drove me was a hands-on on YT and the fellow was much impressed. But OTOH I have some very nice lenses as it is now. I have one by me as I type, a Cooke, I am packing up to mail off. It, the CZJ and the SBS are a great trio of fifties. And I have a nice pair of Canon LTM's, the f.4 and the 1.8, both good lenses. I often have to remind myself of the huge gap between want and need.
Click to expand...
I've long been jealous of that Cooke Amotal. It's a beaut.
 
Wait until regular production lenses are in people's hands, rather than the limited production lenses being loaned to reviewers. Sample-to-Sample variation probably killed the Jupiter-3+.
 
Evergreen States said:
I've long been jealous of that Cooke Amotal. It's a beaut.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is. I saw its images on the internet and became interested. I bought it off eBay after months of shopping. I got it from a fellow here in the US who seems a camera fan. The lens was in very good condition when I got it and I just do not use it enough. Through great good fortune and by following the advice of those far smarter than me I have a few very sweet lenses. There is an abundance of good advice on this board.

This shot of Rhodies, deliberately underexposed, shows the detail and glow in the lens. The flower pistils are sharp, yet there is a glow around the flower. The fading soft pink from the early stages of bloom is still barely evident. F/4.0 IIRC on an M9. It will be on loan to a lens fanatic who has not had one of these, yet. The Cooke page in the internet shows some cine camera shots done with their cine lenses. I have no idea the prescription of the lenses but they have their characteristic glow. OK, the Rhodies

L1002835 by West Phalia, on Flickr
​
You can follow the under picture link to Flickr and blow up the image by double clicking on it if you want. It is a nice lens, flattering for portraits obviously.
 
Last edited:
Sonnar Brian said:
Wait until regular production lenses are in people's hands, rather than the limited production lenses being loaned to reviewers. Sample-to-Sample variation probably killed the Jupiter-3+.
Click to expand...

I am not rushing to buy one. As old as I am I still have time to let this lens settle out. The YT reviewer, Benj Haisch, remarked that his was pre-production and that production ones would likely be different. He said he was not paid and that Thypoch had no preview of what he was posting so I will take him at his word and agree that the images were good.

But I have the CZJ, SBS and Amotal. Come on! Do I really need another lens? Amotal for dreaminess, SBS for great color and honest contrast, factual beauty, and the CZJ for those great Sonnar modelling characteristics, shared also by the SBS, and great color.
 
Last edited:
Given his position in the YouTube community, Benj Haisch seems to get sent a number of niche products for review. He seems fair and even in his assessments of things, not overly glowing like Steve Huff was/is.

The lens itself, eh, I have a Summicron 50 and Zeiss Sonnar 50 ZM, I'm not in a huge rush for another fast 50.
 
boojum said:
OK, Thypoch Simera has this new lens coming out, pre-order if you wish, an f/1.4 that is allegedly very much Summilux like and price very much un-Summilix like. The images I have seen comparing the two make the Simera look pretty good and the pre-order price of US$749 is just a little bit painful. It seems a good lens and at a good price. I have some just great 50's and need talent more than gear, but . . .

Anyone besides me have an opinion on this new yet-to-be-released lens?
Click to expand...
 
I had a lens frenzy and got the Thypoch Simera. I like it. But I am easy. "Blow in my ear and I'll follow you anywhere." ROTFLMAO Anyway, the lens does color nicely. It seems to confuse the M9 in low light giving up underexposed images. I have to see what that is about. In regular light it does just fine.

Here are two from tonight, the first is the old custard stand here in town. Many a misspent youth began to slide right there while someone had a frozen custard, dipped in chocolate, in their hands. Yes, the road to Hell is paved with frozen custard. Until you get to the gates where it all melts. I'll work on figuring out the underexposures, but here is the custard stand.

Underexposed and almost interesting. I'll see if I can figure it out.
 
Last edited:
brusby said:
The very bright lights in center frame are likely causing your underexposure. The camera is trying to interpret them as middle gray
Click to expand...

You know, I thought that, too. OTOH I have gotten good shots in similar light with other lenses and other cameras. I will try again and bring another lens or two with me, just to see. Chances are that you are correct. But I am a smart-ass know-it-all and also I would like to see if different lenses make any difference. "Tape at 11:00."
 
It all depends on how your camera is set to meter. If set to "spot", and to a lesser extent "center weighted" and the spot is on the bright zone, that's almost certainly the problem because it is excluding the surrounding dark areas from the exposure calculation. OTOH, a camera set to meter full frame will be taking the surrounding dark areas into account, trying to lighten those blacks to mid gray, resulting in a brighter image.

Why did you get acceptable results previously? If the camera was set to spot then too, you probably had the spot on a mixed area of bright and dark.
 
brusby said:
It all depends on how your camera is set to meter. If set to "spot", and to a lesser extent "center weighted" and the spot is on the bright zone, that's almost certainly the problem because it is excluding the surrounding dark areas from the exposure calculation. OTOH, a camera set to meter full frame will be taking the surrounding dark areas into account, trying to lighten those blacks to mid gray, resulting in a brighter image.

Why did you get acceptable results previously? If the camera was set to spot then too, you probably had the spot on a mixed area of bright and dark.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand this. I will have to go over the settings and try it again and try some different lenses to eliminate lens error, if such a thing exists. My parole officer likes to see me busy. ;o) It will give me some tasks tomorrow besides a few loads of laundry.
 
OK, just screwing around and running some quick and dirty tests proves your thesis that the incidental light throws the metering off. The M9 has center-weighted metering, period. In the tests, once I swung away from any incidental light the exposure was better. When incidental light was greater the exposure was darker. So, in the future, RTFM and meter in a darker are, press the shutter halfway to hold it and then frame what I want. Duh. If the image is still too dark, point the camera even further away from incidental light. Thanks for the boot in the butt. Results were essentially the same for the Simera and the "Elcan".

Them guys in the Pelican State knows their muffallettas. ;o)
 
I've had the same thing bite me with my M 240 set to classic mode center weighted, so your results do not surprise me 😉 Usually I meter the sky rather than the ground ...Oops!
 
With a shot like this- something will be underexposed. But- the center looks fine.

Vignetting on the part of the lens will also change exposure. If a lens loses 2 stops at the edges- the camera will increase exposure to try to compensate. The center blows out, the edges are dark. This was not as noticeable on film.

The lens looks sharp- let's see some shots in less harsh lighting.
This lens is the same configuration as the ASPH Summilux 50/1.4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom