Cambo Wide lens questions

[Darryl Baird]

Dan, If you can see the light pencil marks in images 2 & 3, you can see how far outside of the lens panel opening the 47mm xl rear element extends. As I try to focus closer, the lens in the helical mount attempts to pull the lens forward, like you said, but the rear element can't clear the hole, it hits the panel and so it's dysfunctional.

I hope this makes sense. (In other words) The lens rear barrel needs to clear that opening in order to move forward. It's not about the film plane, but movement of the entire lens back and forth in the helical mount that connects to a sliding lens panel. I can barely mount it at infinity when the lens is the furthest retracted, with no forward travel for closer focusing because the element is bigger than the available opening. ... I need to make the panel's hole bigger or ???

Here's a photo of the front helical mount, it moves forward about 5 or so millimeters while focusing closer.

Darryl, as you focus closer than infinity the lens moves away from, not towards, the film place. Given that, I can't understand your problem at all. Would you please fiddle with it a little more to see whether the helical can move the lens away from the film plane.

[Dan Fromm]

Darryl, thanks for explaining. What you have doesn't seem right. If it were mine I'd ask Cambo what to do.

[Oren Grad]

The 47/5.6 SA has a flange focal distance of 52.2mm, while the 47 SA XL has a flange focal distance of 59.1mm. Seems to me that to use a cone intended for the plain 47 and get a full focusing range with the 47 XL, you'd need a spacer to move the lens outward, plus whatever remodeling of the cone might be needed to make room for the rear cell when the lens is positioned that way.

Maybe Ed will see this and report exactly what he did to make it work, or thinks somebody else did to make it work.

EDIT: The 47/8 SA has an even shorter FFD spec, 50.9mm. I have an early-vintage Wide 470 cone, alas not with any lens at the moment. In the hands of the prior owner it held an older 47 SA, possibly the f/8 version. I am certain that the cone was designed for the FFD and cell dimensions of one or the other of the plain 47's. It's apparent that my cone, at least, would require some surgery to accept the XL, and it looks as though that's true for yours as well.

[Dan Fromm]

Oren, I looked at Cambo Wide brochures. There've been at least two models (1970 - 1999, 1996 - 2001, if I have the dates right). The earlier one uses a 47 SA (non-XL) with a 123 mm image circle. The later one uses the 47 SA-XL.

The pictures that Darryl posted match the earlier version, not the later. You're right, he could have the wrong cone for his lens.

[Darryl Baird]

The 47/5.6 SA has a flange focal distance of 52.2mm, while the 47 SA XL has a flange focal distance of 59.1mm.
.......
EDIT: The 47/8 SA has an even shorter FFD spec, 50.9mm. I have an early-vintage Wide 470 cone, alas not with any lens at the moment. In the hands of the prior owner it held an older 47 SA, possibly the f/8 version. I am certain that the cone was designed for the FFD and cell dimensions of one or the other of the plain 47's. It's apparent that my cone, at least, would require some surgery to accept the XL, and it looks as though that's true for yours as well.

Aha, plot thickens. Somehow, in the back of my mind I knew this wouldn't be that simple. Hate it when I'm right.

Thanks.

[EdSawyer]

I will take some pics and measurement of mine when I get home. I was able to fit the 47XL to the non-XL cone. It required milling down the outer rear element protection ring, to take some material off the edge. (I used a belt sander then some fine hand-sanding.) That allows it to clear the rear opening. The XL cone has a slightly hogged-out rear-opening to allow the XL rear element to clear with the full rear protection ring in place. The rear ring comes off with one setscrew (tiny) holding it on on the outer rim of the rear protection ring.

I forget what my solution was offhand to the apparent differences in the F-F distances between the two lenses. I didn't add 7mm of spacers, I am pretty sure of that. It does focus to infinity no problem, and seems to be on-the-money as far as the helical calibration and whatnot.

I think due to the cone spacing I do lose a little of the close-focus range, instead of being able to focus down to .5m or whatever, I think I am limited to focusing down to 2m or something. But, given the giant DOF of this lens, it's a non-issue IMNSHO. I will double check if that is an issue with this lens or if it was the issue I ran into fitting the nikkor 90/8 to the Cambo Wide. (one of these lens fitments lost some close-focus distance, I forget which it was offhand... but in either case it was a non-issue to me.)

I will post some pics later of my setup. Also here's a pic of what the actual 47XL rear panel looks like from the inside, which may give you some ideas on this. You will also almost certainly want the IIIc center filter for this lens, there is giant fall-off without it.

-Ed

[Oren Grad]

Thanks, Ed. One more general observation: based on some issues with a 650 cone as well, it looks as though at least some of the cones were quite closely tailored to the specifications - FFD, rear cell dimensions - of the particular lens models that Cambo offered with the camera. One cannot assume that other lenses of the same marked focal length will interchange without modifications to the cone, or at all.

[Darryl Baird]

I found a manual with a similar lens panel (don't known the published date), but it lists the 47xl lens. So I'm even more confused as to what I have.

Oren, I looked at Cambo Wide brochures. There've been at least two models (1970 - 1999, 1996 - 2001, if I have the dates right). The earlier one uses a 47 SA (non-XL) with a 123 mm image circle. The later one uses the 47 SA-XL.

The pictures that Darryl posted match the earlier version, not the later. You're right, he could have the wrong cone for his lens.

[Darryl Baird]

My panel is very different, it appears there is a difference in the panel's opening ...it's smaller on my unit.

I will take some pics and measurement of mine when I get home. I was able to fit the 47XL to the non-XL cone. It required milling down the outer rear element protection ring, to take some material off the edge. (I used a belt sander then some fine hand-sanding.) That allows it to clear the rear opening. The XL cone has a slightly hogged-out rear-opening to allow the XL rear element to clear with the full rear protection ring in place. The rear ring comes off with one setscrew (tiny) holding it on on the outer rim of the rear protection ring.

I forget what my solution was offhand to the apparent differences in the F-F distances between the two lenses. I didn't add 7mm of spacers, I am pretty sure of that. It does focus to infinity no problem, and seems to be on-the-money as far as the helical calibration and whatnot.

I think due to the cone spacing I do lose a little of the close-focus range, instead of being able to focus down to .5m or whatever, I think I am limited to focusing down to 2m or something. But, given the giant DOF of this lens, it's a non-issue IMNSHO. I will double check if that is an issue with this lens or if it was the issue I ran into fitting the nikkor 90/8 to the Cambo Wide. (one of these lens fitments lost some close-focus distance, I forget which it was offhand... but in either case it was a non-issue to me.)

I will post some pics later of my setup. Also here's a pic of what the actual 47XL rear panel looks like from the inside, which may give you some ideas on this. You will also almost certainly want the IIIc center filter for this lens, there is giant fall-off without it.

-Ed

[EdSawyer]

hi -

Oren, you are right, the panels are relatively specific for a particular lens type. I was able to fit the Nikkor 90/8 to the Cambo 900 panel but had to mill 2mm off to adjust flange-focal distance between the Nikkor 90/8 and the SA 90mm. But after doing that it works fine.

To that same end, I got a Cambo 650 a while back, it came with a 65mm SA, but I also had a Nikkor 65/4 that I wanted to try. Due to differences in F-F distance and the way the panel is built for that lens, I was unable to adapt it to work with the NIkkor in that case. (but the 65 SA seems like a fine lens too, so I am using it with that one just fine.)

Darryl - another picture attached. This shows the differences from the front of the 47 non-XL panel (straight crash bars, etc.) and the 47XL panel (which looks like what you have - angled crash bars, slightly higher (longer) overall panel, with beveled corners.

For some reason Cambo seems to have made some types of hybrid 47 panels - I think we both have the same type. These hybrids seem to have depth that matches the 59mm FF distance for the 47XL but with a rear opening that is not large enough for the way the current* 47XL rear element is designed. I already described my solution, which I think will work for you. I also don't have the widened opening that I pictured above - that is a pic of a 47XL-specific panel with 47XL installed (not my camera).

* The only thing I can think of re: rear openings is that maybe there is an undocumented version of the 47XL where the rear element would fit ok with the smaller panel opening, or there was a 47mm non-XL that had a 59mm FF distance. Or something along those lines... it's hard to guess.

If you have a set of calipers, see if you can measure the flange-focal distance of the panel and helical (set to infinity focus) without the lens in place. You can probably put a ground-glass back on the camera and measure from the inner surface of that to the mount-surface of the helical (on the front).

-Ed