PDA

View Full Version : Cambo Wide lens questions



bRokEnVIEW
30-Jan-2013, 09:13
I am very new no LF/MF photography. Since I mainly focus on architectural photography, I'd like to buy a MF or LF system (in the best case: a system which can use both) which allows me to use shift movements. It has to be reasonably compact, a full view camera is to heavy and big for my endeavors. I investigated a bit, and I found a used Cambo Wide Set with 5.6 / 58mm XL (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/190752545620). While the camera looks nice, I wonder about the lens system: Is it possible to use the system with other lenses? If so, what do I need for doing so?

Oren Grad
30-Jan-2013, 09:43
Here's a nice user report on the Cambo Wide system - talks about the lenses as well as the other aspects of the camera:

http://www.paul-armitage.com/CamboWide.html

As you'll see, Cambo offered a nice selection of focal lengths. In principle you could have lenses other than those offered by Cambo put into helical mounts for the system, but between the helical and the need to fabricate the camera mount piece the cost would likely be prohibitive.

bRokEnVIEW
30-Jan-2013, 10:03
Ah, thank you for the link and the answer. It's what I feared.. while the system might be easy to use, you have to use special lens mounts. Which seem to be hard to find, at least on eBay I haven't seen any :(

John Schneider
30-Jan-2013, 10:07
See also these:
http://www.stevewaltonsblog.com/search/label/Cambo%20Wide%20470XL
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/calumet/cambo-wide.html

The original (non-DS or -RS) Wides are long out of production and hard to find, so be prepared for a patient search for other lens panels. Even five years ago, parts were much easier to find. Having said that, it is a great system and well worth the search.

Reinhold Schable
30-Jan-2013, 10:43
Interesting timing...

I have a Cambo Wide 750 (75mm Super Angulon f:5.6) and a couple of Horseman 6x12 holders that I'm thinking of selling...

For 20 years I've travelled Europe carrying this camera, one holder with Ilford FP4, one holder with Konika 750 infrared.
I figured out how to use 220 film in the holders so I could get 12 negatives before re-loading (on FP4 film).
I've even cloned the main frame using Acetal resin for a more compact, portable set-up.
Now that I'm not a mobile as I used to be, it sits on a shelf reminding me of days of adventures past.
I should sell it, but you know how hard it is to part with an old freind...

If anyone is interested, PM me.

Reinhold
www.ClassicBWphoto.com

Beltane
15-May-2015, 01:26
Unfortunately, the link to my blog that John Schneider posted in his post #4 is out of date. If anyone is interested in reading my description of the Cambo Wide 470 and Widepan 6x12 roll film back, PLEASE CLICK HERE (http://www.uklandscapephotographer.com/cambo-wide-470/)

EdSawyer
15-May-2015, 06:28
I have a Cambo Wide setup, much of which came from John Schneider. It's a great system, but as mentioned lens panels on their own are not the easiest things to find. One could DIY them, but it would be a fairly involved project. I refit a 90mm lens panel to use the Nikon 90/8 instead of the schneider, it worked out well (involved milling about 2mm out of the length of the "cone". Overall the Cambo wide, esp. with a horseman 6x12 back, is a very portable and versatile system. I don't shoot a lot of architecture but it would be a fairly good setup for that, depending on what you need for movements. I mostly use mine handheld. I have the 47mmXL and 90mm lenses/cones for it. I'd like to get a 65mm cone and adapt it to the Nikon 65/4 someday, but just haven't gotten to it yet. The lens panels/cones/helicals do show up on ebay from time to time, but it can be a long wait sometimes. Note, the normal 47mm panel can be made to work with the 47mm XL lens.

Finding viewfinders for these can be challenging. There were some made by cambo which are mostly repurposed Linhof and Mamiya viewfinders. I use a Koni Omega viewfinder designed for their 58mm for the 90 (which works out very well!) and a Mamiya 7 43mm finder for the 47xl (which doesn't fully cover but is pretty close). Cambo never made a viewfinder that covered the field of view of the 47XL or 58XL versions.

pierre506
15-May-2015, 07:06
133876133877133878

Ed, there are too many viewfinders we can find, such as Mamiya, Leica, Voigtlander, Contax, Sigma..., from 16mm, 18mm, 21mm, 28mm...
I use Hasselblad SWC viewfinder on my Cambo WIDE 65.

Darryl Baird
1-Sep-2016, 12:38
I have a Cambo Wide setup, ..... Note, the normal 47mm panel can be made to work with the 47mm XL lens.


Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I purchased a 47mm XL after finding a 470 Cambowide panel to fit onto a Cambowide frame. I can barely get it mounted, but the lens' rear element is too close to the panel to allow me to focus closer than infinity with the helical barrel focusing. It would appear that if I milled out a couple of round notches that I could use this lens. BUT, I'm a little confused as to why this won't work as I've read of other photographers using this lens on the older Cambowide cameras.

ANY pointers or techniques would be greatly appreciated. It took me nearly 3 years to collect all the parts. and boy was I excited and then.... DAMN! So close!

154496 - 154497
154498

Dan Fromm
1-Sep-2016, 13:03
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.

Darryl Baird
1-Sep-2016, 13:28
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
1-Sep-2016, 15:12
Darryl, thanks for explaining. What you have doesn't seem right. If it were mine I'd ask Cambo what to do.

Oren Grad
1-Sep-2016, 16:23
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
1-Sep-2016, 17:47
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
1-Sep-2016, 18:22
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. :p

Thanks.

EdSawyer
2-Sep-2016, 07:36
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

154514

Oren Grad
2-Sep-2016, 07:44
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
2-Sep-2016, 08:05
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
2-Sep-2016, 08:11
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

154514

EdSawyer
2-Sep-2016, 08:21
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

154519

154520

154521

Phil Hudson
2-Sep-2016, 09:03
* 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
2-Sep-2016, 09:12
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
2-Sep-2016, 09:49
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
2-Sep-2016, 10:30
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
3-Sep-2016, 07:18
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

154555

154556

154557

154558

EdSawyer
3-Sep-2016, 07:18
One more pic showing interior at minimum focus distance.

154559

Darryl Baird
7-Sep-2016, 11:40
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
7-Sep-2016, 13:17
glad to help!