Cambo Wide lens questions

[Phil Hudson]

* 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.

Several years back I sold a 47XL to a form member which fits that description. Here's my blurb from that posting....I'll add photos of the lens in due course if I can still find them:

"It was recently taken off a Cambo Wide DS panel which means that it is the version of this lens that has a shortened shroud on the rear element (to prevent fouling the internal shift mechanism on the camera).

This means that the convex rear element is potentially vulnerable to damage unless you use a deep lens cap of the right size. On the Cambo DS the rear was never exposed so there was no need for a cap, but on a view camera it needs something in the longer term.

I understand that the extended shroud as supplied with the 47XL for use on a view camera can be ordered separately from Schneider should you need it (it attaches with a tiny grub screw on the rim)."

[Darryl Baird]

Ed, do I need the rear protection ring on while it's inside the camera body?

I see the setscrew and think our lab tech might be able to get it off, but the "removing of metal" on the ring is beyond my skill-set. Without that ring, it would certainly clear the panel opening. As it is, I can't even get it screwed in far enough to achieve infinity focus (I just checked again).

Much thanks for your help, seems to me that the mystery of camera makes and variables is endless.

[Oren Grad]

To avoid any confusion: the Cambo Wide DS cones are different from the Cambo Wide cones.

I'd forgotten about the production tweak in the 47 XL. There were also changes in the physical mount of the f/5.6 Super-Angulons with the move to multi-coating. So even saying, for example, "65mm f/5.6 Super-Angulon" isn't enough by itself to settle all possible compatibility issues with a Cambo Wide cone.

[EdSawyer]

Darryl - Yes, you need to have the ring on there in some form, since it holds in the rearmost element in the rear group. I took mine off when I ground it down, and noted that it was effectively the retaining ring for that rear element.

A small jeweler's flat-head screwdriver should be enough to take it off, I'd think. Be aware the rear element is unattached to the rear group at that point, so be careful it doesn't fall off (!). The rear protection ring is just metal, not too hard to machine off a little bit so it clears the rear area of the board. Worst case scenario (if you can't find anyone else to do it), I'd offer to do that for you if you want. I'll post pics of the results from my efforts on that when I get home.

I think I considered machining the board itself to allow the clearance but for some reason I chose not to do that - I think it might be that there was not enough material on the board to remove that part and not run into other problems. (Light leaks at full shift? I forget...). But, that might be an option, I'll have to look again to see what I was thinking there. Though, that said, removing that material from the board would be at least as hard (if not harder) than removing material from the rear protection ring.

Also, make sure you have the helical for the 47 - presumably it says that on there somewhere. In general the helicals are all the same (as far as throw, etc.) that I can tell, though the distance calibrations/markings are different. I am pretty sure I looked up the helical part numbers for the 47XL and non-XL and they both use the same helical from Schneider.

Oren: yes the DS cones are definitely different. re: production tweak to 47XL - it would be interesting to know if there were running changes to the design on those (and the non-XL), but Schneider documentation is not really verbose about that sort of thing, that I can find. It does sound like there were several variations of the SA lenses over time. Likely probably changes from Cambo as well possibly.

Phil: I remember seeing that lens for sale and that different rear shroud. At the time I was going through this whole thing, I tried to see if I could get that part from schneider, and I got nowhere with that. Either they didn't have it, didn't know if they had it, and/or wouldnt' sell it separately, so it was a moot point for me (at the time. )

-Ed

[EdSawyer]

Ok, so I measued and photographed my setup this a.m. Bottom line, if you remove the extra material on the rear protection ring, everything should fit and line up perfectly, with no loss of functionality and perfect collimation/FFD. When I mentioned yesterday about losing some close focus distance, that ended up being the case on my Nikkor 90/8 fitment. I lost about .4m of close focus on the helical due to the rear element cone shape on the Nikkor 90/8 vs the SA. But the 47xl focuses down to minimum focus distance on the helical just fine, so nothing to worry about there. I also measued the flange focal distance on my setup with a set of digital calipers and I get 59.2 mm or so (subject to some minor variance since I had to do the measuement in 2 steps, and eyeballed alignment of one part of it, since I didn't feel like dismounting the lens). Also, infinity is in perfect focus on the ground glass wide open when focused to infinity so I am confident your setup should be the same.

Some pics below, showing my setup, and the interior with both infinity focus, minimum close focus, and full shift.

Ed

[EdSawyer]

One more pic showing interior at minimum focus distance.

[Darryl Baird]

Ok, back from a short trip and the first day of the semester's classes. I want to thank everyone for their contribution to the conversation.

Ed, I'm sending a PM. MANY thanks.

[EdSawyer]

glad to help!