A new arrival from Thypoch, in the vintage lens category, comes in black and silver. Leica Rumors have an extensive outline of the 130g, 27mm long Ksana 21/3.5. Warm golden flares styled after the 70s' Japanese lenses, this unit is surprisingly well-specified. An 8/6 design, we see two ED elements, an aspherical element and no fewer than three HRI elements. $549 plus 5% buying from Thypoch direct (which I do).
Rings appear well-formed and functional. MTF leaves little to be desired in such a lens. The selling point of the Epoch coating reminds of the latest Arles Lustre series of cine lenses from the parent company DZOFILM.
The maker is very interested in the passage of time, as revealed by the naming of their lenses. Ksana (Kṣaṇa) is a Sanskrit word meaning a fleeting moment, instant, or a very small unit of time, crucial in Buddhist philosophy to emphasize impermanence and the preciousness of each instant. It goes way back in time in that belief system. To the early Sarvastivadins, these units of time are expressed as dharma, their philosophy dates from the time of Asoka, around 250 BC. 'All exists', past present and future.
Very pretty aesthetically, and I'm glad there’s a tab. They call it 'vintage optically" which I think refers to the way it flares. Usually, when the front element reflects amber (as shown in their product images), it actually means the images will render a bit cooler.
Thanks for posting that. He got that one up quickly.
I think they probably added Amber flair because I don’t think the lens is remarkable in any other way (at least from Bastian’s review) compared to the CV 21/3.5. It’s not like you’re getting a lot of personality on a 21/3.5 unless you’re getting pretty hellacious micro-contrast or something else remarkable. Interesting offering from Thypoch. I may not be crazy about some of the other lenses, but I understood them better. This seems pretty unremarkable. Maybe I am missing something.
Perhaps the Amber flair and the retro styling is enough for some? I’m not seduced by looks with cameras, but lot of people sure are. Fuji and Leica have largely brands on nostalgia and the aesthetics of gear.
That is pretty much Bastian's conclusion. But I think there can be space for this kind of a lens. It's very compact, has a neat somewhat retro look that isn't overboard ugly and is semi-mildly imperfect. The last point though is a tricky one because it's a very subjective matter. For some it may not be imperfect enough to distinguish it from other 21 options currently available. But if they go too far, it ends up being something crazy like the Kistar 28/3.2.
Most UWAs now are high sharpness and contrast whereas this one, the images look a little toned down, more 'rounded' for a less stark feeling. In some ways it reminds me of what I like about the Canon 35/2 LTM wide open. It doesn't have insane SA glow like the faster Leica and VM non-ASPH lenses, but instead a nice smoothness. I have zero experience with vintage M/LTM 28mm and wider lenses so not sure how the Thypoch compares to those, but maybe it's a modern alternative? BTW, I also like the Canon 35/2 LTM for its at times obnoxious flare characteristics. And I slightly see this in the Thypoch, but maybe because it's 21mm, the weird flare ghost strings are fairly small, whereas with the 35 they can be quite large.
If this is indeed the start of another series of lenses, I'm very curious to see how Thypoch translates this to 28, 35, 50mm, etc. IMO those focal lengths would make more sense for the characteristics Thypoch says they're applying to the 21.
To be honest, Bastian is usually pretty Thypoch friendly, so him giving this a shrug and me agreeing with him is interesting.
I understand Thypoch’s approach with offering something less perfect and less digital on their other lenses as alternative for some. At this point, I probably shoot “character glass” 70% of the time or so, more than what CV or Thypoch or modern Leica is offering so I support lenses that lean into character.
But like you stated, it’s pretty subjective and on the lens like this I’m not really sure that there’s enough personality/differentiation.
I still think their 28/1.4 is their most compelling lens as it offer something truly unique. Their other lenses, at least Simeras, are just slight variations of other glass. At least the way I think about lenses, no matter who makes it, is why do I want to spend $500 or $1200 on a lens? Is it really offering me something unique? Something I’m not getting from the alternatives?
In terms of its size, I don’t think there is a meaningful difference between this and the CV 21 3.5 if it’s on your camera in your pocket. It is lovely looking though, and eye candy of all types goes a long way in society.
This is a very confusing release. I was very excited to see a new 21mm. But worse vignetting and stronger flares than the voigtlander f3.5 and f4, which are two aspects I care most about when shooting 21mm for landscapes and architecture. I guess it's closer in size to the CV f4 than the f3.5, which is good... maybe the ergonomics are nicer..? A really tough sell when the CV lenses can easily be found for cheaper, especially secondhand. Who asked for a 21mm with these characteristics?
I don't like that thypoch is optimising their lenses for thicker sensor stacks then making them in m mount. They did it with their 21/1.4 which stopped me from buying it, the whole thing gives a really unpleasant perception of their brand and what they think of M-mount shooters.
thrice wrote:
I don't like that thypoch is optimising their lenses for thicker sensor stacks then making them in m mount. They did it with their 21/1.4 which stopped me from buying it, the whole thing gives a really unpleasant perception of their brand and what they think of M-mount shooters.
I didn’t want to keep beating a dead horse, but Thypoch continues to not release lenses that work optimally with the mount they’re made for.
I understand optimising for a 1mm digital m stack, the compromise for film is minimal. Optimising for a 2.5mm+ stack on Sony FE is absolutely brain-dead.
The funny thing is that we can correct this, I did it for my Loxia 21 after thin-filter modding my A7RII. You just need to find a 1.5mm thick UV/clear filter in a suitable diameter and find a way to mount it to the rear of the lens. You will need to recalibrate the focus on the lens but corner performance should match the camera for which it was designed (not Leica M).
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I didn’t want to keep beating a dead horse, but Thypoch continues to not release lenses that work optimally with the mount they’re made for.
thrice wrote:
I understand optimising for a 1mm digital m stack, the compromise for film is minimal. Optimising for a 2.5mm+ stack on Sony FE is absolutely brain-dead.
The funny thing is that we can correct this, I did it for my Loxia 21 after thin-filter modding my A7RII. You just need to find a 1.5mm thick UV/clear filter in a suitable diameter and find a way to mount it to the rear of the lens. You will need to recalibrate the focus on the lens but corner performance should match the camera for which it was designed (not Leica M).
I agree. Simply changing the mount to save on production makes financial sense, but I prefer Cosina's approach of adjusting the optical design based on sensor stack thickness. For Thypoch, mirrorless shooters likely will not mind, but using ultra wides on M cameras will come with trade offs, especially field curvature and astigmatism.
Having heavily played the PCX filter game and given that I own a modded Sony, stock Sony, film m, and used to shoot digital M, what Thypoch is doing is silly—and probably quite calculated.
I don’t know what the expense of modifying lenses to a particular mount, but CV has done it with their e-mount lenses, which generally coast less than m-versions. Thypoch could get creative and release a matching correction (for optics and looks) filter to mitigate IQ loss. They wouldn’t have to touch anything else production-wise. Or they could tweak the actual optics. Or in the way @thrice described.
The point being, they must think that shooters are indifferent enough or uneducated enough that their current and continued process makes sense. And given the low quality of many reviews and all the hype I see, Thypoch may well be right.
And given most of their branding is that their lenses are not overly digital and vintage, maybe they can get away with decreased IQ.
The point being, they must think that shooters are indifferent enough or uneducated enough that their current and continued process makes sense. And given the low quality of many reviews and all the hype I see, Thypoch may well be right.
And given most of their branding is that their lenses are not overly digital and vintage, maybe they can get away with decreased IQ.
I have no problem with Thypoch not optimizing the lens for a particular mount, or the the "decreased IQ". I look at the images the lens produces, and I either like it, or I don't. Maybe not the most educated approach, but it works for me. It might not work for others, of course.
Now, given Bastian's review, would I use this lens for edge-to-edge sharp landscape photos? Probably not. But it might be quite nice for street photography, or urban scenes where corner sharpness is not needed/wanted. And I do like the flare.
Can always subtract sharpness and in this day and age you can subtract contrast effectively too.
I get that some folks want the flaws straight out of box but smeared corners and field curvature are not a desirable character feature for me personally.
I do like my lenses to have character, or flaws if you prefer calling it that, most of the time. Hence I love the old Contarex lenses. But I don't shoot landscapes so that might have something to do with it. And yes, some characteristics can be simulated in Photoshop; others cannot, at least I don't know how to.
There are plenty of optically more perfect lenses out there, though. So, personally, I am happy that someone makes a different lens. The same way that I am happy that someone makes a lens that is so sharp in the corner that it scratches your cornea, even if I have no interest in using it (at least most of the time). Generally, the more diversity the better, at least as far as I am concerned.
Now, would I be interested in the Ksana? Maybe. Unless I find someone who can CLA a Contarex 21mm.
mranger211 wrote:
I do like my lenses to have character, or flaws if you prefer calling it that, most of the time. Hence I love the old Contarex lenses. But I don't shoot landscapes so that might have something to do with it. And yes, some characteristics can be simulated in Photoshop; others cannot, at least I don't know how to.
There are plenty of optically more perfect lenses out there, though. So, personally, I am happy that someone makes a different lens. The same way that I am happy that someone makes a lens that is so sharp in the corner that it scratches your cornea, even if I have no interest in using it (at least most of the time). Generally, the more diversity the better, at least as far as I am concerned.
Now, would I be interested in the Ksana? Maybe. Unless I find someone who can CLA a Contarex 21mm....Show more →
I like character too. But not all types and not on all lenses And you’d fall into the group of shooters Thypoch is betting on that I mentioned.
I don’t like axial CA nor do I really like the type of FC that bends to the corners into focus. It’s inherent to the 50/1 Noct optical design—a favorite lens of mine. But I think it’s ugly on that lens too. And this Ksana isn’t really a “character” lens to me—the Thypoch is quite modern inside optically and it’s a 21/3.5. To me, a character wide would be a Leica 19/2.8 v1 or Canon FD 20/2.8.
But lower contrast, flare, SA, coma, vignetting and less than stellar corners in the outer mid frame to corner are fine and even preferred for much of my shooting.
Anyway, if the IQ hit doesn’t bother you, that’s great. You’ll probably enjoy the lens and if you’re shooting stopped down, as we often do for nature and street, the FC won’t be relevant.
And I loved the Contarex line—I had a beater 85/2 I should have never sold.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I like character too. But not all types and not on all lenses And you’d fall into the group of shooters Thypoch is betting on that I mentioned.
I don’t like axial CA nor do I really like the type of FC that bends to the corners into focus. It’s inherent to the 50/1 Noct optical design—a favorite lens of mine. But I think it’s ugly on that lens too. And this Ksana isn’t really a “character” lens to me—the Thypoch is quite modern inside optically and it’s a 21/3.5. To me, a character wide would be a Leica 19/2.8 v1 or Canon FD 20/2.8.
But lower contrast, flare, SA, coma, vignetting and less than stellar corners in the outer mid frame to corner are fine and even preferred for much of my shooting.
Anyway, if the IQ hit doesn’t bother you, that’s great. You’ll probably enjoy the lens and if you’re shooting stopped down, as we often do for nature and street, the FC won’t be relevant.
And I loved the Contarex line—I had a beater 85/2 I should have never sold....Show more →
Nehemiah,
It's a great point that what one person enjoys in a lens characteristic may not work for someone else. I think we can all agree that CA is not a feature many people like. Lateral and axial CA are always negatives in my view, but some other "flaws" that I used to find unpleasant have grown on me over time. One of these is optical vignetting, the cat's eye effect and swirl in the rendering. It used to bother me, but now I think it can really enhance certain images. Excessive vignetting also used to annoy me, but nowadays I tend to like it more than not..
In the past, I only wanted very smooth highlights, without any inner structure or outlining. Today I look for lenses that render with more character, the classic way, instead of the super smooth, lifeless modern look. FC used to bother me as well, but not anymore. I don't mind if the corners are a bit more in focus than they should be because it usually makes the highlights more pronounced at the edges. It does not always work, but it bothers me far less than it did before. Flare, especially veiling, is another example.
So tastes can change, and that has definitely happened with me. There are also perfectly corrected "APO" lenses that I love, and they have their place depending on what I am shooting.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Nehemiah,
It's a great point that what one person enjoys in a lens characteristic may not work for someone else. I think we can all agree that CA is not a feature many people like. Lateral and axial CA are always negatives in my view, but some other "flaws" that I used to find unpleasant have grown on me over time. One of these is optical vignetting, the cat's eye effect and swirl in the rendering. It used to bother me, but now I think it can really enhance certain images. Excessive vignetting also used to annoy me, but nowadays I tend to like it more than not..
In the past, I only wanted very smooth highlights, without any inner structure or outlining. Today I look for lenses that render with more character, the classic way, instead of the super smooth, lifeless modern look. FC used to bother me as well, but not anymore. I don't mind if the corners are a bit more in focus than they should be because it usually makes the highlights more pronounced at the edges. It does not always work, but it bothers me far less than it did before. Flare, especially veiling, is another example.
So tastes can change, and that has definitely happened with me. There are also perfectly corrected "APO" lenses that I love, and they have their place depending on what I am shooting....Show more →
Yep! I remember in the old days when you generally liked very smooth well corrected glass and I had recommended to you the CV 35/2 Ultron and 73/1.5 Sonnetar but at that time they were not attractive to you. And I also remember you getting into the old Leica glass and PM’ing and getting excited about that. Those are actually some of my fonder memories on my time on FM.
And I remember the same process myself. I was loaned a 35 Lux 1.4 pre-ASPH and did not like it the first time I tried it around 2015! At that time, I was into the RX1 and ZM 35/1.4 and coming from an ZA 135/1.8 and such. And while I still like those lenses, they are a bit boring for me. They are usually applied in specific use cases or for a certain modern qualities—excellent flare resistance, across the frame resolution WO or high microcontrast WO.
The CY 35/1.4 was my first gateway drug Then followed Pentax 31/1.8 and MS Optics 35/1.4 and 35 Lux pre-asph and so many others now. I have found my taste to have been pretty consistent after that pivotal shift about 7 or 8 years ago. Even on my modern lenses, I like to have some character/stand out feature. Most of my photography budget is for character glass and/or film.
I also played with using diffusion filters and started a thread that ran for a couple years on here, but I never found those to work like old glass.
The modern stuff is easier and cheaper to come by more and more. And I think cell phone/computation photography, competent cheap 3rd party glass and videography make that modern clean look even less singular.
And you’d fall into the group of shooters Thypoch is betting on that I mentioned.