Wanderlust 4x5 P&S

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Goldstein

I guess I wasn't clear. I wasn't asking about changing from one 90mm to another, but from, say, a 90mm to a 135mm by adding an extender back and (perhaps) changing focusing mounts. That gets to the heart of my question - is there any quick way to change what's on the front of the camera? I would be willing to purchase an additional focusing mount, if it's available, to support this.

---

Steve, we have the 90mm focusing helical, and a 65mm fixed focus plate. It's not difficult to convert between them, but you need to use a small screwdriver to remove and then replace the four mounting screws. Again, it's something you could do in a coffeeshop, but you wouldn't want to do it on a mountaintop.

Hope that answers your question—in a nutshell, no, it's not a quick change. There's no bayonet mount for the helical or anything. It would be much easier to simply pack two cameras.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben Syverson

I'm really excited about this camera becoming a platform for various 4x5 camera hacks... Sort of like how the Holga is an easily hackable platform for medium format. We would be happy to open source the 3D drawings of the basic dimensions—especially the back.

---

Wow, that's really giving back to the community!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben Syverson

Steve, we have the 90mm focusing helical, and a 65mm fixed focus plate. It's not difficult to convert between them, but you need to use a small screwdriver to remove and then replace the four mounting screws. Again, it's something you could do in a coffeeshop, but you wouldn't want to do it on a mountaintop.

Hope that answers your question—in a nutshell, no, it's not a quick change. There's no bayonet mount for the helical or anything. It would be much easier to simply pack two cameras.

---

Thanks Ben, that's what I was after. If I had a second focusing helical (assuming you made extras available separately) with a different lens mounted, it would require removing and replacing four screws to swap, plus swapping in the back extender, to change from one focal length to another. That would allow one to get the infinity focus set ahead of time for the second helical, and even make the necessary focusing marks.

The reason I'm so interested in this is because I believe my 75mm Komura (retrofocus design) would also focus at infinity with the focusing helical. Granted it's not quite as wide as a 65mm (lens or pinhole), but I've got one.

Ben, I was just looking at update #18. I'm hoping that the 8 meters to infinity was a typo for 8 feet. The hyperfocal distance for an f/8 65mm is 4.74 meters for 2.43m (~8 feet) to infinity in focus. Now, wides really don't do their best wide open and I usually shoot mine at at least f/16. The hyperfocal distance for f/16 is 2.4 meters for 1.6m to infinity. Even f/11 at an HFD of 3.46m is 2.04m to infinity. Hopefully there will be enough shims included to get the HFD down to 2.4m with the 65mm f/8 Super Angulon? Or are you saying that the lens on the camera will not make infinity focus on the minimum adapter and we will have to grind some off to even get to 2.04m?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chauncey Walden

Ben, I was just looking at update #18. I'm hoping that the 8 meters to infinity was a typo for 8 feet. The hyperfocal distance for an f/8 65mm is 4.74 meters for 2.43m (~8 feet) to infinity in focus. Now, wides really don't do their best wide open and I usually shoot mine at at least f/16. The hyperfocal distance for f/16 is 2.4 meters for 1.6m to infinity. Even f/11 at an HFD of 3.46m is 2.04m to infinity. Hopefully there will be enough shims included to get the HFD down to 2.4m with the 65mm f/8 Super Angulon? Or are you saying that the lens on the camera will not make infinity focus on the minimum adapter and we will have to grind some off to even get to 2.04m?

---

I took it as a typo but it is a question worth asking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuditorOne

I took it as a typo but it is a question worth asking.

---

It's not a typo... Keep in mind that hyperfocal distance is more of a philosophical concept based on your own definition of "in focus." For your purposes, you may be able to find a focal distance that is "close enough" at 2 feet all the way to infinity. But as a camera manufacturer, I have to be cautious of people with 20X loupes and drum scanners. That's why we'll supply the 65 user with shims, so they can make their own decision... It sounds crazy, but "in focus" is truly subjective.

To add some more info... We've found the infinity focus to vary pretty significantly from lens to lens... But on the 65mm we took out last week, it was focusing just ever so slightly past infinity with zero shims. The optimal number of shims was about 6, which was sufficiently hyperfocal from 8m to infinity at f/8. We plan to manufacture our shims roughly 3X thicker than the test shims, so that would equate to 2 shims. We'll supply 3 or 4. So you'll be able to precisely nail infinity or possibly shim down to a closer, street-photo style hyperfocal range.

Keep in mind that at f/16, MUCH more will be in focus. I'm only talking about f/8.

Ben, the update showed some nice example pinwide images. One was shot at 0.8 seconds exposure and the other at 1.2 seconds. They appear to be shot on 4x5 film, so I assume they were shot with the Travelwide prototype.

This may be a stupid question, but how are you getting sub-second timing accuracy without a shutter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Bates

Ben, the update showed some nice example pinwide images. One was shot at 0.8 seconds exposure and the other at 1.2 seconds. They appear to be shot on 4x5 film, so I assume they were shot with the Travelwide prototype.

This may be a stupid question, but how are you getting sub-second timing accuracy without a shutter?

---

Not a stupid question at all! The numbers were what the meter said, and what we tried to do. We used a microfiber cloth as a shutter (balled up and pressed against the Pinwide), and counted "one one thousand" to gauge how long a second was. The nice thing about a ~1 second exposure is that even if you mess up and let it go as long as 1.5 seconds, you're only off by half a stop—you'd probably never notice the difference on film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben Syverson

It's not a typo... Keep in mind that hyperfocal distance is more of a philosophical concept based on your own definition of "in focus." For your purposes, you may be able to find a focal distance that is "close enough" at 2 feet all the way to infinity. But as a camera manufacturer, I have to be cautious of people with 20X loupes and drum scanners. That's why we'll supply the 65 user with shims, so they can make their own decision... It sounds crazy, but "in focus" is truly subjective.

---

Well, "in focus" is objective, but it only occurs at the focus plane. The subjective part is "what appears to be in focus", which depends on the size of the enlargement. But it's not a binary switch--stuff a bit closer will still look sharp on smaller prints, and stuff a bit less close will allow bigger prints. I will probably adjust mine to make sure infinity works reliably at 16x20 for, say, f/16, and then let what I get define print size on the near end. For people pictures where I want f/8 (which is a dodgy aperture even on a Super Angulon), I will just adjust my position to the correct focus distance, but infinity won't be as critical.

Rick "who can well understand that each person will have his own strategy for addressing this" Denney

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rdenney

Well, "in focus" is objective, but it only occurs at the focus plane.

---

This is a digression, but hey, we have some time. :) Sadly, even "focus" is subjective. Lenses don't converge rays at a discrete point—they loosely come together and then fall apart, as shown in this exaggerated illustration (the top lens is a nonexistent "perfect" lens):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...tion_2.svg.png

As you can see in the above graphic, there is no "correct" point of focus; towards the left, you favor higher contrast but lower frequencies, and to the right you favor lower contrast but higher frequencies. That point will shift based on whether you're shooting a portrait or Christmas lights. Granted, on a well-corrected lens, this zone of compromise is very tiny, but it's still a factor, even with the most modern APO designs.

That's why "hyperfocal distance" is subjective; to make it objective, you would need to define a target contrast ratio for a given frequency and percentage of the frame—because it varies across the field.

When we sell the 65mm Conversion Kit on its own, we won't actually state a hyperfocal range anymore. We'll just include shims and explain how you can use them to determine your own preferred focus distance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben Syverson

This is a digression, but hey, we have some time. :) Sadly, even "focus" is subjective. Lenses don't converge rays at a discrete point—they loosely come together and then fall apart, as shown in this exaggerated illustration (the top lens is a nonexistent "perfect" lens):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...tion_2.svg.png

As you can see in the above graphic, there is no "correct" point of focus; towards the left, you favor higher contrast but lower frequencies, and to the right you favor lower contrast but higher frequencies. That point will shift based on whether you're shooting a portrait or Christmas lights. Granted, on a well-corrected lens, this zone of compromise is very tiny, but it's still a factor, even with the most modern APO designs.

That's why "hyperfocal distance" is subjective; to make it objective, you would need to define a target contrast ratio for a given frequency and percentage of the frame—because it varies across the field.

When we sell the 65mm Conversion Kit on its own, we won't actually state a hyperfocal range anymore. We'll just include shims and explain how you can use them to determine your own preferred focus distance.

---

So, you are trying to out-pontificate me? Ha!

You might get a bit of spherical aberration with that 65/8 Super Angulon at f/8, even in the center, but not much. I doubt you could see it by f/11, at least in the center. Maybe a bit of chromatic aberration. By f/16 (the specified optimal aperture for this lens), a lens in factory condition delivers its promised performance corner to corner of the specified coverage, in my experience with Schneider's reported performance. Are your results consistent with my experience? You've been playing with the 65/8 more recently than I have. I suspect one would need to make a much larger print than 16x20 to see what you are describing. And if the camera is hand-held, all bets are off.

But if we assume an error-free lens, there is only one focus plane, and everything closer or farther is not in it. The focus plane itself might not exist (as with those aberrations) or it might not actually be a plane (though Super Angulons are not known for having a curved field or other geometric distortions more common in retrofocus designs). But even if it exists, stuff isn't in it unless it's in it.

The errors you describe accumulate on top of the loss of sharpness as the subject matter departs from the focus plane. That does tend to reduce the assumed sharpness (given some standard of enlargeability) that results from depth-of-field calculations.

I'll just put the lens where it gives me a sharp infinity at f/16 (the aperture I'll use when I care about infinity) in a 4x enlargement (which is at the limit of what I can do at home). And I'll let my eyes tell me when it looks sharp enough, heh.

Rick "who won't ask for 50 shims made from 0.001" brass" Denney

Rick, that sounds like a plan! Practically speaking, it's going to be pretty easy to find a good hyperfocal distance. Especially at ƒ/16 and 16x20—you may get significantly more range than you expect!

0.001" SS or brass shims used to be easy for me, we made them all the time for shimming diesel liners.

Kinda hard to handle in larger diameters.

I'm thinking 0.01" should do the trick :)

Picked up a mint condition Caltar 90mm IIN 6.8 yesterday in Chicago for a great price-getting ready for this project!

I just got a cheap voigtlander 15mm finder to mask down to 65mm 5x4/6x12. Boom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dave_whatever

I just got a cheap voigtlander 15mm finder to mask down to 65mm 5x4/6x12. Boom.

---

Thinking of which, what finder would you recommend for the 90mm? I have one of the Rodenstock 90mm f6.8 Grandagons that I'm planning to put on my camera, and use the 65mm cone in pinhole configuration.

I posted this picture a while ago to illustrate the usage of a 21mm or 25mm viewfinder made for a 35mm rangefinder as a viewfinder for the TravelWide. You can mask the 21mm for a full 4x5 frame or the 25mm for a 6x12 frame.

http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/...viewfinder.jpg

Corran, that's for the 90mm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Davis

Thinking of which, what finder would you recommend for the 90mm? I have one of the Rodenstock 90mm f6.8 Grandagons that I'm planning to put on my camera, and use the 65mm cone in pinhole configuration.

---

A few years back I bought one of these for about half what they cost now, and hacked a new mask for 6x17 use with a 90mm lens. I was new to the format and needed a bit of help visualising shots. But I've still got the 5x4/6x12 mask for it. Thats probably the cheapest off-the-shelf solution that's not made of plastic or total junk.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Fixed-View...item3f36b6e7a4

I'm thinking that after I get used to where to position my eye the supplied metal frame finder will be just fine. And, it does not get sumdged with fingerprints like my CV finder for their 21mm lens. And of course the price is right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mdarnton

Corran, that's for the 90mm?

---

Yes, sorry if that was unclear.

21mm viewfinder would be appropriate for the 65, not the 90. A 28mm viewfinder would be closer for a 90.

21mm would be a bit tight for a 65 (18mm equiv) unless it was the brightline type with visible area past the framelines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EdSawyer

21mm viewfinder would be appropriate for the 65, not the 90. A 28mm viewfinder would be closer for a 90.

---

It depends if you are talking about the vertical or the horizontal. The problem here is the aspect ratio. Masking off the left and right side of the 21mm gives me close to a 90mm perspective on 4x5. A 28mm vf would have stuff missing from the top and bottom.

Probably some of us already think this way (masking the edges) from using 6x7 holders in 6x9 cameras. I know I'm totally comfy working that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings

Picked up a mint condition Caltar 90mm IIN 6.8 yesterday in Chicago for a great price-getting ready for this project!

---

Kirk,
If that Caltar is the Ilex-Calumet Wide Field 90mm f8 mounted in Copal no. 0 you will be a happy photo dog! I bought one this past year; not for my "coming" Wanderlust. but as a replacement for my Schneider (Linhof) regular 90mm pancake lens, which I had CLA'd for the Travel Wide. The Caltar's new home is on my Wista 4x5.
I had the choice between the Schneider Super Angulon or the Wide field Ilex Calumet Caltar. I read everything I could find on the web. Several companies made the Wide Field Caltar at different times - all used the famous Tessar lens design. Of course a Tessar is a Tessar or would be Tessar. Most were single coated, (after 1945) until about 1978 when multi coating for color film became the norm. Production ended in 1983. All had a 100-105 degree field of view, measured at f/16 usually, depending on who tested them or who you want to believe. I tested all 3 actually,included my small schneider 90mm. The little Schneider did great - the field of view is only rated at 81 degrees and the circle of coverage at 180 mm. I felt the DOV was better than 81 and the 180mm COV good enough for all but severe architecture.
But when it came the the Super Angulon vs. the Wide Field it was very difficult to find any differences. When I compared negatives shot at the same time and place on my Wista, the shot having a fore ground object, a larger middle ground object and an infinity object, shot at same settings, it was pretty much a toss up. A slight edge goes to the Caltar for fore ground sharpness and the way it seemed to push it forward. The only short coming for the Caltar is the front lens barrel is not threaded making it difficult to use filters and shades. I'm very happy with the lens and it cost $100 less than the Super Angulon. Oh!, by the way it is said to be the exact lens as the Calumet W.A. Acugon which sold to commerical photogs for twice the Price as the Caltar.
Happy trails,
SteveP

Steve, the 90/8 Ilex sold under a variety of names is an f/8 Super Angulon clone, not a tessar type. Ain't no 100 degree tessar types.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mdarnton

Probably some of us already think this way (masking the edges) from using 6x7 holders in 6x9 cameras. I know I'm totally comfy working that way.

---

I went a bit different for a new aspect ratio on 6X9. I took my Fujica GL690 and masked the film gate down to 3CM down the middle of the roll, with a mask in the viewfinder window. This gives me a frame size that is 30mm X 88mm. This works out to an aspect ratio almost identical to 6X17 CM, and a lens choice on the Fujica body of 100mm or 65mm with the two lenses I enjoy the most.

I plan to similarly mask a Dayi 6X12 which will yield a 30mm X 118 Panoramic. This will be an aspect ratio almost identical to 6X24Cm.

Since I shoot mostly expired film purchased on eBay, I don't mind the waste on film. Furthermore, different masks may be challenging to play with, such as 40mm X 88 or 118mm.

Looking forward to this fun set of options with the Travelwide.

Kuzano, not to be a complete idiot or anything, but why don't you crop after the film's processed?

:confused:Could do that, but that seems so obvious. Why ruin my fun?

Besides, this was a result of pondering an exercise to load and run 35mm cassettes through my GL690.... now that you have come up with my obvious flawed extension of that plan, perhaps I will go back and rig the GL690 for 135 cassettes. Hmmm, but how to do that with the DAYI 6X12....

Think man, Think!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Fromm

Kuzano, not to be a complete idiot or anything, but why don't you crop after the film's processed?

---

Actually Dan, you may have a point. I would like the see the panorama in the view finder, BUT, as you point out, I could just insert a removable insert in the viewfinder for the image I would crop. Then, I could do Pano's on certain frames, and full 6X9 on others by removal/insertion of the view finder mask.

So simple... Thank you. Do you find simpler concepts easier to formulate?????;););) You could be, as they say, THE MAN!

No, Kuzano, the only thing I excel at is laziness.

Here's one of the fruits of my laziness: http://1drv.ms/1pvlksm 38/4.5 Biogon on 2x3. I could have masked the gate to 24x82, but think of the cropping opportunities I'd have given up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuzano

Actually Dan, you may have a point. I would like the see the panorama in the view finder, BUT, as you point out, I could just insert a removable insert in the viewfinder for the image I would crop. Then, I could do Pano's on certain frames, and full 6X9 on others by removal/insertion of the view finder mask.

So simple... Thank you. Do you find simpler concepts easier to formulate?????;););) You could be, as they say, THE MAN!

---

Also, without a mask in the film plane you can use a 3cm wide strip from the top or bottom of the frame as required, in effect giving you rise/fall as and when you need.

Dan,
Your right! Thank you for correcting me on those facts. It was the old Caltars and Acutars that were a modified Tessar design and Not the S/A or W/F. I hadn't seen the data on the lens in some time so I jumped to a couple of blog sites I use to refresh my memory. However I failed to note the manufacturing period of the discussions. I have just visited the Calumet catalog, (1965) for the lens and the Schneider S/A, which Calumet also sold. I attempted to copy and attach the page but could not. It can be found on cameraeccentric.com. Scroll down to the catalog picture for details. Calumet does claim a 100 DOV for the 90mm W/F. There is a Calumet HR f/8, 90mm listed on Michael Gudzinowicz lens list having 4/4 lens, gp. but with only 170 degrees circle of cover. The Calumet Caltar W/F, f/8 90mm is listed with 215 degree COC,and the Schneider S/A, f/8 90mm with 216 COC. Both Calument W/F & Schneider S/A list as 6/4 lens group. I'll try to bee more careful next post. It's still a great lens and no more a clone than any other S/A since the original.
Happy trails,
SteveP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Pitchford

Kirk,
If that Caltar is the Ilex-Calumet Wide Field 90mm f8 mounted in Copal no. 0 you will be a happy photo dog! I bought one this past year; not for my "coming" Wanderlust. but as a replacement for my Schneider (Linhof) regular 90mm pancake lens, which I had CLA'd for the Travel Wide. The Caltar's new home is on my Wista 4x5.
I had the choice between the Schneider Super Angulon or the Wide field Ilex Calumet Caltar. I read everything I could find on the web. Several companies made the Wide Field Caltar at different times - all used the famous Tessar lens design. Of course a Tessar is a Tessar or would be Tessar. Most were single coated, (after 1945) until about 1978 when multi coating for color film became the norm. Production ended in 1983. All had a 100-105 degree field of view, measured at f/16 usually, depending on who tested them or who you want to believe. I tested all 3 actually,included my small schneider 90mm. The little Schneider did great - the field of view is only rated at 81 degrees and the circle of coverage at 180 mm. I felt the DOV was better than 81 and the 180mm COV good enough for all but severe architecture.
But when it came the the Super Angulon vs. the Wide Field it was very difficult to find any differences. When I compared negatives shot at the same time and place on my Wista, the shot having a fore ground object, a larger middle ground object and an infinity object, shot at same settings, it was pretty much a toss up. A slight edge goes to the Caltar for fore ground sharpness and the way it seemed to push it forward. The only short coming for the Caltar is the front lens barrel is not threaded making it difficult to use filters and shades. I'm very happy with the lens and it cost $100 less than the Super Angulon. Oh!, by the way it is said to be the exact lens as the Calumet W.A. Acugon which sold to commerical photogs for twice the Price as the Caltar.
Happy trails,
SteveP

---

Steve, This is Caltar 90mm IIn 6.8 which I believe was manufactured by Rodenstock in Germany for Calumet Photographic, "this lens is made from the Grandagon design templet. Size-wise, it has dimension and weight similar to f/8 lenses, but gathers more light, making it easier to focus in any shooting condition. Highly corrected for color and aberration, it offers a 102° angle of coverage". From a used sales ad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings

Steve, This is Caltar 90mm IIn 6.8 which I believe was manufactured by Rodenstock in Germany for Calumet Photographic, "this lens is made from the Grandagon design templet...

---

Yes, depending how old it is, your lens is a Grandagon or a Grandagon-N.

I've had more than one request for a Travelwide forum... I don't want to set one up, because LFF is already such a rich and comprehensive LF resource. I'm more than happy to direct people here, but I'm also hesitant to flood LFF with 1500 users, many of whom will be newbies.

So, does it make sense to have a Travelwide subforum? Or possibly a "Beginners" subform? Or maybe we can come up with a category for the Travelwide and Harmon Titan—"Plastic 4x5 Cameras"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben Syverson

"Beginners" subform?

---

Sounds like a great idea to me potentially, but it might muddy the waters a bit regarding where a thread goes.

An article for the Home Page on pinhole photography might be helpful to the new LF users who don't have lenses yet.

And some other lenses for your updates include the 90mm f/6.8 Optar and Raptar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Karp

An article for the Home Page on pinhole photography might be helpful to the new LF users who don't have lenses yet.

And some other lenses for your updates include the 90mm f/6.8 Optar and Raptar.

---

Unfortunately, the Optar and Raptar are often in Copal 00 shutters, so I'm hesitant to recommend them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings

Steve, This is Caltar 90mm IIn 6.8 which I believe was manufactured by Rodenstock in Germany for Calumet Photographic, "this lens is made from the Grandagon design templet. Size-wise, it has dimension and weight similar to f/8 lenses, but gathers more light, making it easier to focus in any shooting condition. Highly corrected for color and aberration, it offers a 102° angle of coverage". From a used sales ad.

---

Kirk & Oren,
Where in the Sam Hill did you find this great information? I've spent hours searching high & low for such specifics! I now love the lens more than ever. The lens serial no. is 3656. The outside barrel diameter 69.90mm approx. The front glass size diameter inside bezel is 49.80mm. The rear barrel is 56.20mm. Does this data sound correct or change anything? f/6.8 vs f8 aperture?, I can see the brightness factor but is that what makes it seem to pop out the foreground more?
Thanks so much, waiting to hear your reply's.
Happy trails,
SteveP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben Syverson

Unfortunately, the Optar and Raptar are often in Copal 00 shutters, so I'm hesitant to recommend them...

---

My WA Optar 90/6.whatever is not in a Copal shutter at all, but in a Graflex Small shutter that is a bit smaller. But Graflex made a flange that has a ridge on it that will snuggle nicely into a Copal/Compur No. 0 hole if used as a retaining ring.

But I would not shy away from a Compur 00 shutter because of that reason--adapters for putting them in 0 holes are available on ebay, and really nice ones are available from S. K. Grimes. I have a couple of them already. My 65/8's are in 00 shutters, with adapters. But I might shy away from them simply because they have been out of production for a long time and they are difficult to have serviced.

Rick "thinking those little Graflex shutters are less likely to need such service for some reason" Denney

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben Syverson

Unfortunately, the Optar and Raptar are often in Copal 00 shutters, so I'm hesitant to recommend them...

---

Ben,
Is the Synchro-Compur shutter f6.8/ 90mm considered similar? It's a Schneider-K.....labeled Linhof Technika. Early on I emailed you about the lens and you answered you thought it would work. I had it CLA'd just for the Travelwide. I like it's small size and weight and image sharpness, and while I have a Calumet W/F, I can't imagine using such a boat anchor on a P&S camera and am baffled by all the lens discussions. However I've learned long ago, "To each his own, it's all unknown - if dogs roam free why not me" (we). Bob Dylan, from the Basement Tapes.

Happy trails,
SteveP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oren Grad

Yes, depending how old it is, your lens is a Grandagon or a Grandagon-N.

---

Oren, you and Kirk may be mistaken. Ilex made a line of f/8 SA clones, 47, 65, and 90 mm. Calumet sold them as Ilex Caltars. The s/n Steve quoted fits the Ilexes, doesn't fit the Rodenstock s/n sequence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben Syverson

I've had more than one request for a Travelwide forum... I don't want to set one up, because LFF is already such a rich and comprehensive LF resource. I'm more than happy to direct people here, but I'm also hesitant to flood LFF with 1500 users, many of whom will be newbies.

So, does it make sense to have a Travelwide subforum? Or possibly a "Beginners" subform? Or maybe we can come up with a category for the Travelwide and Harmon Titan—"Plastic 4x5 Cameras"?

---

There's no problem directing people here, and if enough come and need such a forum, we'll discuss options when we see the issues.

An article for the home page providing the basics for Travelwide users new to 4x5 would seem to me a no-brainer.

Rick "thinking this is a good problem to have" Denney

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Fromm

Oren, you and Kirk may be mistaken. Ilex made a line of f/8 SA clones, 47, 65, and 90 mm. Calumet sold them as Ilex Caltars. The s/n Steve quoted fits the Ilexes, doesn't fit the Rodenstock s/n sequence.

---

My comment was addressed to Kirk, in response to these observations about the lens that he owns:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings

Picked up a mint condition Caltar 90mm IIN 6.8 yesterday in Chicago for a great price-getting ready for this project!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings

Steve, This is Caltar 90mm IIn 6.8 which I believe was manufactured by Rodenstock in Germany for Calumet Photographic, "this lens is made from the Grandagon design templet. Size-wise, it has dimension and weight similar to f/8 lenses, but gathers more light, making it easier to focus in any shooting condition. Highly corrected for color and aberration, it offers a 102° angle of coverage". From a used sales ad.

---

Kirk owns a Grandagon. Steve has a different - older - lens, for which the question of Ilex vs Schneider is relevant. Steve does not own a Grandagon, under any name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Fromm

Oren, you and Kirk may be mistaken. Ilex made a line of f/8 SA clones, 47, 65, and 90 mm. Calumet sold them as Ilex Caltars. The s/n Steve quoted fits the Ilexes, doesn't fit the Rodenstock s/n sequence.

---

Yes, the distinguishing factor is the f/8 maximum aperture. People usually assume they are rebadged Super Angulons, but they are not.

If the maximum aperture is f/6.8, though, and the lens is a Super Angulon-style near-symmetrical opposing retrofocus design, then it's probably a Grandagon. Calumet bought from a range of different suppliers over the years, initially Ilex, and later Rodenstock. There were even some Schneiders in the mix, but not Super Angulons.

Rick "recalling an article on the topic by Kerry Thallman in View Camera, but don't have it handy for more specific reference" Denney

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Pitchford

Ben,
Is the Synchro-Compur shutter f6.8/ 90mm considered similar? It's a Schneider-K.....labeled Linhof Technika. Early on I emailed you about the lens and you answered you thought it would work. I had it CLA'd just for the Travelwide. I like it's small size and weight and image sharpness, and while I have a Calumet W/F, I can't imagine using such a boat anchor on a P&S camera and am baffled by all the lens discussions.

---

What you have is an Angulon, not a Super Angulon. The Angulon is a Dagor design (actually a competitor to it--the Dagor was made by Goerz), very very old but still quite decent for its size, weight, and coverage. It is a six-element double-anastigmat design--two anastigmat triplets opposing each other. Schneider improved on the Dagor design by enlarging the outer elements to provide more coverage. The Graflex WA Optar (which is really a Wollensak WA Raptar) is a similar concept, even smaller and lighter but probably not quite as good.

Super Angulons, Fuji SWDs, Nikkor-SWs, and Grandagons are all derived from the original Zeiss Biogon concept, which put two retrofocus wide angle lenses in opposition around a central aperture. The opposing nearly symmetrical design corrected geometric distortion, which was loved by architectural photographers. These lenses provided very wide coverage, making short focal lengths possible. But they are two lenses in opposition, so they are about twice as long as their focal length, making them rather large and heavy.

Schneider, Nikon, Fuji, and Rodenstock lenses will be in Compur (German) or Copal (Japanese) shutters. Those shutters are all sized according to a standard scheme--No. 00 needs about a 26mm hole, No. 0 needs a 34mm hole, No. 1 needs a 42mm hole, and so on. 90mm and shorter lenses will only be found in No. 0 or No. 00 shutters.

Graflex (Wollensak) lenses are in Wollensak shutters, which follow a different scheme.

Calumet lenses (branded Caltar) were made by various contractors, but all of them that could be under consideration here were made for Compur or Copal shutters.

All of these perform best at f/16 or f/22. None were designed for use wide open, and doing so will reveal their weaknesses, if sharpness is the objective. The double-retrofocus lenses generally outperform the double-anastigmat lenses, but at the price of size, weight, and cost.

Rick "summarizing" Denney