Bubble in WWL-C Wet Lens?

[ridgebackpilot]

Anyone know what may have caused the light anomaly on the left side of these photos? These were taken in Raja Ampat last month, on my first day shooting the Nikon Z8, Nikkor Z 24-50mm lens, Nauticam housing, WWL-C wet lens, Retra Pro Max strobes. Would an errant bubble of air between the lens and the port explain this phenomenon? Or perhaps something else like strobe flare?

 

Edited April 21 by ridgebackpilot

[TimG]

Is the port clean on the inside? Or a dirt mark on the lens?

[Pooley]

Did you move the strobes between shots?

[ChipBPhoto]

My guess would be possibly the left strobe being too close to the WWL.  I use them myself, but they are susceptible to flare from strong light at certain angles.  The issue is not identical on both frames.  The first where pointed more towards a brighter scene is slightly less heavy.  The second in a darker scene appears to show a more solid issue.  
 

If not burped after entry, could be a bubble, but looks to me to be more caused by light.

Edited April 21 by ChipBPhoto

[Dave_Hicks]

Looks like left right strobes positioned too close to the port. Get longer arms and get them up and out! Try two 16 inch segments per arm. 

Edited April 21 by Dave_Hicks

[RomiK]

Strobes... could be either one really... this from wwl-1B... I think I was shooting this jelly between the strobes, they were little up front... but then with some luck the resulting crop may give that... 🙂 

Edited April 21 by RomiK

[ChipBPhoto]

20 minutes ago, RomiK said:

Strobes... could be either one really... this from wwl-1B

Good example….

[ridgebackpilot]

Thanks for your responses! I suspect you're all correct: This phenomenon was more likely due to one of my strobes being positioned too close and too far forward.

 

This only showed up on a couple of shots in the same sequence. A bubble or dirty port would have affected all the shots in the range.

[Guest]

Bubbles tend to show a red hue

it is not just the strobe that will just show as a white light

Make sure you take the lens off clear the port and back on each dive

[Architeuthis]

I was able to produce a similar type of flare, even without wet lens. Here a photo (not the best photo, but it has the flare on it) made with WACP-C/Sony 28-60/A7R5:

 

28mm; ISO200; f/10; 1/200s; 2* Z330.

 

 

On three photos, out of many hundreds taken during a two week diving vacation, I saw this flare. I guess this flare comes from sun rays (the photos with flare are all near the surface, during decompression), or maybe from the flash...

 

Wolfgang

Edited April 22 by Architeuthis

[fruehaufsteher2]

I agree, the wetlenses are a bit prone to flares, but the red-yellow colored spots seem more to be related to flash. The ones from the sun are different in color. (WACP-C)

Shot from the underwater workshop in Marsa Shargra showing the flashes in the "rabbit ears" position. 🐇

Edited April 22 by fruehaufsteher2

[Tino Dietsche]

Hello everyone,
Since this is about the WWL-C and it is used here together with various full-format cameras and lenses, I wanted to ask how the lens basically performs? Does anyone have any experience comparing the WWL-1?

The WWL-C is basically developed for smaller sensors?

 

Thank you for your feedback,
Tino

[fruehaufsteher2]

Depends on the camera-lens combination. Sony-28-60 works really well with the Nauticam-solutions made for smaller sensors (WACP-C, WWL-C). AFAIK other combinations doesn't work as well.

[Tino Dietsche]

3 minutes ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

Depends on the camera-lens combination. Sony-28-60 works really well with the Nauticam-solutions made for smaller sensors (WACP-C, WWL-C). AFAIK other combinations doesn't work as well.

Thanks for the feedback. I would also use the Sony 28-60.

I'm currently using the Sony 16-35 F4 behind a 180mm dome. The combination is already weak at the edges and based on various tests and images I would have better quality and edge sharpness with the 28-60 with WWL-1 or WWL-C. Plus 130° instead of just 107°.
 

I already have the 28-60 here, but I haven't bought the port yet.
 

In that case you could choose a WWL-C instead of the WWL-1 without any problems if you got one at a good price?

What do others think about this?

[fruehaufsteher2]

19 minutes ago, Tino Dietsche said:

In that case you could choose a WWL-C instead of the WWL-1 without any problems if you got one at a good price?

I only can comment on the WACP-C that should be very similar to the WWL-C (only having the additional water between port and lens). Here the difference between WACP-C and WACP-1b seems small in my eyes, same should apply for the comparison between WWL-C and WWL-1

[Architeuthis]

32 minutes ago, Tino Dietsche said:

Thanks for the feedback. I would also use the Sony 28-60.

I'm currently using the Sony 16-35 F4 behind a 180mm dome. The combination is already weak at the edges and based on various tests and images I would have better quality and edge sharpness with the 28-60 with WWL-1 or WWL-C. Plus 130° instead of just 107°.
 

I already have the 28-60 here, but I haven't bought the port yet.
 

In that case you could choose a WWL-C instead of the WWL-1 without any problems if you got one at a good price?

What do others think about this?

 

I cannot comment on IQ with WWL-C, as I do not have this lens. According to the Nauticam portchard, the WWL-C (which was, AFAIK, developed for compact cameras) the Sony 28-60 is not compatible with WWL-C (24mm plus small lens dimensions are required - just the Sony and Sigma 24mm lenses are listed for Sony FF cameras):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WpealW6Kwx_OURxeLzOp5kqahbwutsol/view

 

 

Wolfgang

[fruehaufsteher2]

12 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

 

I cannot comment on IQ with WWL-C, as I do not have this lens. According to the Nauticam portchard, the WWL-C (which was, AFAIK, developed for compact cameras) the Sony 28-60 is not compatible with WWL-C (24mm plus small lens dimensions are required - just the Sony and Sigma 24mm lenses are listed for Sony FF cameras):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WpealW6Kwx_OURxeLzOp5kqahbwutsol/view

Hi Wolfgang, you are right. I thought that the same applies to WACP as to WWL...

[Guest]

It’s not flare

the two images have different situations with the sunball and the flash

yet the issue is in the same point so a bubble most likely 

 

separate topic the wacp flares much more than the wwl-1 with the same 28-60 because of the gap inside the housing.

The surfaces are reflective even if the wet lens isnt this can create problems. 

wwl-1 has the lens on the back of the port with no gap the lens has more contrast and less issues

wacp-c with less gap would be better but there is no 20mm extension for N100

Edited April 22 by Interceptor121

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Tino Dietsche said:

Hello everyone,
Since this is about the WWL-C and it is used here together with various full-format cameras and lenses, I wanted to ask how the lens basically performs? Does anyone have any experience comparing the WWL-1?

The WWL-C is basically developed for smaller sensors?

 

Thank you for your feedback,
Tino

the construction of the wwl-1 and wacp is identical

wwl-c is different designed for 24mm lenses it has a simpler constructions

they normally dont support the same lenses

[Dave_Hicks]

17 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

It’s not flare

the two images have different situations with the sunball and the flash

yet the issue is in the same point so a bubble most likely 

 

separate topic the wacp flares much more than the wwl-1 with the same 28-60 because of the gap inside the housing.

The surfaces are reflective even if the wet lens isnt this can create problems. 

wwl-1 has the lens on the back of the port with no gap the lens has more contrast and less issues

wacp-c with less gap would be better but there is no 20mm extension for N100

It is flare in the WWL-C. I was shooting with it today after reading this thread. Confirmed. 

 

I released any bubbles at the start of the dive. In some particular strobe positions I can see the 2 parts of the "T-shaped" xenon bulbs of my Inon 330. In the very next shot I move the flash off the plane of the port and it is gone. I use a lot of inward lighting and if it is on the plane of the glass port it can reflect. 

[RomiK]

Hmm...  this thread made me think and review... also because still weighing pros and cons of switching from WWL-1B to WACP-C... these are movie screen grabs (jpegs from HDR screen so...) from some dreamy shots I was trying to make and it seems the flare is a thing with WWL-1 (it typically appeared in the opposite corner away from the light source and was moving within the frame). It is on stills too. My WWL1 was sitting in a closet for a year as I was using 180mm glass on my trips so when reviewing it caught me by surprise. I am wondering what experience do WACP owners have? 

Edited April 23 by RomiK

[RomiK]

18 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

It’s not flare

the two images have different situations with the sunball and the flash

yet the issue is in the same point so a bubble most likely 

 

separate topic the wacp flares much more than the wwl-1 with the same 28-60 because of the gap inside the housing.

The surfaces are reflective even if the wet lens isnt this can create problems. 

wwl-1 has the lens on the back of the port with no gap the lens has more contrast and less issues

wacp-c with less gap would be better but there is no 20mm extension for N100

 

It would help if you could back up your claims with your samples... otherwise it's like he said she said and empty theories. I would be particularly interested in WACP flare samples and particularly in that 'flares much more' part. Thanks

Edited April 23 by RomiK

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Dave_Hicks said:

It is flare in the WWL-C. I was shooting with it today after reading this thread. Confirmed. 

 

I released any bubbles at the start of the dive. In some particular strobe positions I can see the 2 parts of the "T-shaped" xenon bulbs of my Inon 330. In the very next shot I move the flash off the plane of the port and it is gone. I use a lot of inward lighting and if it is on the plane of the glass port it can reflect. 

Red spots in side position same identical are bubbles with on top ghosting

if the lens doesnt see the strobe it cannot happen you could see however a halo which is flare

flare=lack of contrast hazy image

Ghosting=shapes in the image typically of the color of the lens coating

Both can occur but without the bubble the wwl-1 doesn’t ghost easily even with the strobes in the image 

[RomiK]

29 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

Red spots in side position same identical are bubbles with on top ghosting

if the lens doesnt see the strobe it cannot happen you could see however a halo which is flare

flare=lack of contrast hazy image

Ghosting=shapes in the image typically of the color of the lens coating

Both can occur but without the bubble the wwl-1 doesn’t ghost easily even with the strobes in the image 

 

It does ghost without bubbles and very easily, especially with light source - whether it be strobe or a sun in shallow depths - reflecting the surface of the lens which is quite easy given its shape ...

Edited April 23 by RomiK

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, RomiK said:

 

It does ghost without bubbles and very easily, especially with light source - whether it be strobe or a sun in shallow depths - reflecting the surface of the lens which is quite easy given its shape ...

Nope

it is the combination of lens and port

see my hammerhead video lens shooting in the light and minimal issues with wwl-1 and panasonic

 

problems reduce going from wacp-c to wacp to wwl-1 with the 28-60

No issues with 28mm and 32 flat port as this is practically on the glass

obviously any lens when pointed directly to a light source will have issues

it strikes me how naive some underwater photographers are they never tried the lens on its own and expect zero issues underwater 

 

the 28-60 is quite decent against bright light on its own and obviously the additional optic can only make things worse but they are not as bad generally 

 

the construction of all wacp wwl is identical the wet lens should do worse however it seems the air gap between lens and port is the most important factor as stray rays bounce into the extension