dentrock Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 1 hour ago, Phil Rudin said: I think the 180 dome is a better choice because of the 25cm minimum focus. I have gotten much better results with much wider rectilinear lenses that focus to 12cm with 140 port. Yes, of course wrt min focus. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biodives Posted March 30 Author Share Posted March 30 (edited) 20 hours ago, Phil Rudin said: ... First the 24 to 105mm has a Minimum focus of 38cm and goes to 1:3.2. The 20-70mm has a minimum focus of 25cm and goes to 1:2.6, no question the better choice. Sony already offers a 70-200mm F/4 macro that goes to 1:2. This is an excellent lens with very fast AF and can be used with additional C/U lenses and tele converters for more magnification. Thanks Phil! I appreciate the value of the 20-70mm F4 for most underwater photographers and this discussion need not be limited to my less common usage pattern. But, as indicated in my opening post, I rarely use focal lengths wider than 35mm because my main targets are small motile fish that you can never approach closely enough to need such a wide angle. Occasionally I get a large grouper or sleeping wobbegong where a wide angle would have been nice but that is a limitation I can live with. Your second suggestion is more up my alley and I actually spent quite a bit of time yesterday reading about the 70-200mm F4 macro. It is a very interesting focal range for me and its ability to provide 1:2 macro throughout its focal range is amazing. The minimum focus distance is 26cm at 70mm and even at 200mm it is an impressive 42cm. I used Backscatter's ordering page to see if this lens is supported but it is not listed for the Nauticam or Isotta housings. Fully zoomed in to 200mm this lens extends to 205mm length. To house it I would need a 7cm exension port plus the macro port for the sigma 105mm macro which I think is the longest port they have. This sounds a bit extreme but not impossible. The lens extends by about 5.5cm when zooming to 200mm so vignetting and loss of working distance at the wide end of the zoom range are drawbacks, but if the 70-200mm F4 macro can be housed I would consider it. While on Backscatter I checked out supported lenses and noticed that Nauticam makes a zoom gear for the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 RXD lens. This lens has a minimum focus distance that ranges from 19 to 39cm giving 0.31 to 0.25x max magnification. This lens has now been replaced by the 28-75mm F2.8 VDX G2 model with MFD 18 to 38cm and max magnification at the wide end boosted to 0.37x. The new model also has better optics, focus motor, and the cost has stayed pretty much the same (US$799 at B&H). Another attraction of this lens is that it only extends by 1.8cm when zoomed in and fully extended it is exactly the same length as the Sigma 105mm macro so I assume it will work behind that port. I have inquired if this lens is, or will be, supported. Edited March 30 by Biodives 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Rudin Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 I have attached some photos of the Marelux housing configuration and some test shots above water with the Sony FE 70-200mm F/4 macro. I actually took an interest in this focal length after a trip to Bali where both of my dive buddies were using the Nikon D850 and the Nikon 70-180mm F/4.5-5.6 AF-D Macro a lens discontinued in 2004. This is a 1:3.20 at 70mm to 1:1.32 at 180mmm lens. Both use Nauticam housings with modified ports with both flat or interchangeable curved ports. Marelux offered support for the Sony FE 70-200 F/4 macro as soon as it was released. Marelux recommend two configurations, one for 70-100mm behind a 67mm flat port and a different configuration for 100-200mm with the 67mm flat port. I am using the Sony 90mm macro lens port with a total of 75mm of extension which brings the total length to 172mm for the 100-200mm range. This would be a total of around 152mm port and extension for Nauticam A7R V users. The Marelux zoom gear works flawlessly with the system as does the modern auto focus system. To zoom the complete range I will be trying the 140mm dome but I think this could also be done with the Nauticam N100 four inch dome. Not completely sure in the case of Nauticam. I have attached three images the first is at 200mm and 1:2 and the image is 68mm across or slightly less than 1:2. The second image is 200mm at 1:2 using the APS-C format. The third image is 200mm at 1:2 with the Marelux MV-10 closeup lens which brings the image to beyond life-size to about 2:1. Regarding the Tamron, I owned the latest version and ended up selling it when I got the much more useful 20-70mm. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biodives Posted March 30 Author Share Posted March 30 I replied in the new thread you created for this lens (https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/1069-sony-fe-70-200mm-f4-macro-lens/#elShareItem_1953065761_menu) What port did you use for the Tamron 28-75mm while you had it and did it give vignetting issues. It only extends 18mm so hopefully it is not a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John E Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 I am a huge fan of the fish identification photographs of Gerald Allen, Roger Steen, Paul Humann and Ned DeLoach in books like Reef Fish Identification Tropical Pacific. I wonder if anyone knows what focal lengths they used. It strikes me that if you want longer reach MFT or APS-C is much more manageable and the amount of water you are shooting through is going to have a big impact on image quality and lighting anyway. (OM 90mm sounds appealing here) Another question is don't the 20-70 and 70-200 lenses extend a lot? Doesn't that effect image quality due to finding the best port extension length... eg difficult to get the right dome position on the 20-70 or vignetting at 70mm on the 70-200? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Ross Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 On 3/31/2024 at 8:15 AM, John E said: I am a huge fan of the fish identification photographs of Gerald Allen, Roger Steen, Paul Humann and Ned DeLoach in books like Reef Fish Identification Tropical Pacific. I wonder if anyone knows what focal lengths they used. It strikes me that if you want longer reach MFT or APS-C is much more manageable and the amount of water you are shooting through is going to have a big impact on image quality and lighting anyway. (OM 90mm sounds appealing here) Another question is don't the 20-70 and 70-200 lenses extend a lot? Doesn't that effect image quality due to finding the best port extension length... eg difficult to get the right dome position on the 20-70 or vignetting at 70mm on the 70-200? Don't know what they use But I would comment using such lenses in a small dome wouldn't be quite penalty that you see with shorter zooms and it would allow an all in one solution, you wouldn't be wanting a big dome at all at 70mm. Likewise another lens to consider would be the Olympus 12-100 lens, I don't see anyone offering that as a possibility but apart from needing to make a zoom gear should not be too difficult to house. One anecdote I did not offer before on the 12-40 lens is an experience shooting Mandarin fish at dusk, they don't like light, so I tried a red filter but still didn't like it so I went to shooting without a focus light using the 12-40 zoomed in to 40mm and it was snapping into focus instantly - no comparison with the 60mm macro which would hunt like crazy in such conditions. I would guess that the 12-100mm would have similar performance. Part of this is the excellent optics wide open which helps AF work better. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biodives Posted March 31 Author Share Posted March 31 (edited) 16 hours ago, John E said: I am a huge fan of the fish identification photographs of Gerald Allen, Roger Steen, Paul Humann and Ned DeLoach in books like Reef Fish Identification Tropical Pacific. I wonder if anyone knows what focal lengths they used. It strikes me that if you want longer reach MFT or APS-C is much more manageable and the amount of water you are shooting through is going to have a big impact on image quality and lighting anyway. (OM 90mm sounds appealing here) Another question is don't the 20-70 and 70-200 lenses extend a lot? Doesn't that effect image quality due to finding the best port extension length... eg difficult to get the right dome position on the 20-70 or vignetting at 70mm on the 70-200? That is exactly the style of images I am taking and two new species added to the forthcoming second edition of Reef Fishes of the East Indies are based on my images. Since I am in regular contact with Drs. Allen and Erdmann I should ask them about their preferred camera setup. If you think in terms of 'framing' then m43 and APS-C have more reach. But if you think in terms of croppability, much more relevant to me, then that is not the case. For instance, if I compare a 20Mpx m43 image to a 20Mpx crop of a A7R V FF sensor then the m43 only has 10% more reach. Another way to think about it is that I can crop up to 1.8x on a A7R FF sensor and get the same or better resolution than a 20Mpx m43 would give me. So the 90mm macro becomes a 90-160mm 'cropping zoom' compared to m43. Of course the cropping is optional so a 28-75mm zoom on FF becomes a 28 - 135mm 'm43-equivalent zoom'. At the same nominal focal length, you can get much close with a FF sensor than a m43 sensor to get the same FOV. So the Sony 90mm FF macro is a more general purpose solution, comparable to a 45mm m43 macro, then the OMD 90mm macro which will be mostly limited to very small subjects. Where things change is if you get to 1:1 macro where subject distance is not limited by framing but by the minimum focus distance limit. Here a longer lens on FF will lead to longer working distance but, unless you are in really murky water, even the FF macro distance is close enough to not make that much of an issue with the greater working distance often being an advantage. Extending zoom lenses can result in vignetting and at the wide end of the range there is a large air gap between the lens and port which means you don't get the optimal working distance and I guess it also affects close-up adapters. The Olympus 12-50mm lens uses internal zoom which was great but all FF internal zoom lenses I looked at have a too long minimal focus distance. So the 70-200mm F4 macro is rather special and if it works well under water, even if with some restrictions, it would be worth the significant cost. It would be a nice topside lens as well. Edited March 31 by Biodives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Rudin Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 22 hours ago, John E said: I am a huge fan of the fish identification photographs of Gerald Allen, Roger Steen, Paul Humann and Ned DeLoach in books like Reef Fish Identification Tropical Pacific. I wonder if anyone knows what focal lengths they used. It strikes me that if you want longer reach MFT or APS-C is much more manageable and the amount of water you are shooting through is going to have a big impact on image quality and lighting anyway. (OM 90mm sounds appealing here) Another question is don't the 20-70 and 70-200 lenses extend a lot? Doesn't that effect image quality due to finding the best port extension length... eg difficult to get the right dome position on the 20-70 or vignetting at 70mm on the 70-200? I dived several times with two of the fish ID guys and they are macro shooters, mostly in the 100mm range. Regarding the 20-70mm I posted results at 20, 45 and 70 on the first page of this thread using a 180mm dome. You can be the judge of the results. The 70-200 is already explained above along with the port specs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biodives Posted March 31 Author Share Posted March 31 Mark Erdmann just responded to my question with the following: I have the Sony A7R V and I LOVE it. Really good for gobies too given the high resolution sensor. For me, I shoot the 90mm macro and then carry the super macro convertors, which I use especially for dwarfgobies and blennies and things you can get close to without them moving. I know others that use mid-range Zoom, but I don’t see much use in it and not worth the extra weight (and cost) for something I’d hardly use I reckon. He also has a 28mm prime and uses with the Nauticam WWL but only for sharks and mantas, which are not high on my priority list. I still think the 70-200 macro is interesting but perhaps I should start out simple and shoot one trip on just the 90mm macro and then see if I feel limited in any areas before expanding my lens set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biodives Posted April 6 Author Share Posted April 6 Just wanted to let you know that I picked up a Sony A7R V with 90mm macro lens today. I have a whole summer to get familiar with it before diving season starts again Housing and other odds and ends will be added closer to departure time. Thanks for all comments and suggestions! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruehaufsteher2 Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 Good decision. A7RV is surely good choice above and below the surface. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChipBPhoto Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 (edited) 8 hours ago, Biodives said: Just wanted to let you know that I picked up a Sony A7R V with 90mm macro lens today. I have a whole summer to get familiar with it before diving season starts again Housing and other odds and ends will be added closer to departure time. Thanks for all comments and suggestions! Congrats! It’s truly a pretty amazing camera. Definitely learn the new menu system and set up custom buttons. It’s basically a computer that takes great images which is why this is the key to using it, especially in quickly changing uw conditions. Here is a video Alex did on setting up the a1. (There is a part 2 as well). The a7rV has the same menu and options. I found it to be a good starting point. Customize to personal taste from there. FYI - if you want a single walk around lens for some topside images on a dive trip, I have been very happy with the Tamron 28-200. It is very affordable, relatively small, sharp, and resolves well with the high megapixel bodies. It is my go-to for festivals, landscape, etc. when I don’t want to carry multiple lenses. Enjoy! Edited April 6 by ChipBPhoto 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts