Wanderlust 4x5 P&S

[Dan Fromm]

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

[Kuzano]

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!!!

[Kuzano]

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!

[Dan Fromm]

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.

[dave_whatever]

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.

[Steve Pitchford]

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

[Kirk Gittings]

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.

[Oren Grad]

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.

[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"?

[Corran]

"Beginners" subform?

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