I am trying my super wide in the 180mm wide angle port that does not have enough field of view to contain the lens

However due to focus breathing at close range this lens is more like 14.5mm so it has a field of view of 111 degrees

Which means that using a 30mm extension the lens is almost perfectly positioned with the 180 wide angle port but there is vignetting on the side due to the hood

The crop required is 1.02x

 

For reference the uncropped image

 

You can see edge performance is very good considering this is almost at minimum focus distance f/11

 

If you have this lens results are pretty good and probably not far off the larger 230mm port

 

For reference Nauticam port charts suggests 20mm extension (which does not vignette) I believe 25mm would not vignette either

 

The performance with the 30mm and crop is better than using the 20mm extension.

 

Shaving the hood would resolve the vignette (if you are open to that idea)

 

The other consideration is that the Sony 16-35GMII has indeed an uncorrected field of view of 109 degrees so you are almost there and works without vignetting

Edited April 25, 20241 yr by Interceptor121

why would you want to do that?  is it because you do not have a 20mm port?

28 minutes ago, hellhole said:

why would you want to do that?  is it because you do not have a 20mm port?

The 20mm is too short the image quality drops considerably and the lens looses field of view to the point is not worth using it compared to a 16mm

Edited April 26, 20241 yr by Interceptor121

so... u are saying... if you want to use the 14mm sony with the 180mm dome. its better to use it with a 30mm port and crop rather than the recommend 20mm port..

 

but...

 

it probably not worth it to do all that and just use at 16mm instead with a 180mm port

 

or!

 

get a 230mm dome.. and all is well...

Edited April 26, 20241 yr by hellhole

2 hours ago, hellhole said:

so... u are saying... if you want to use the 14mm sony with the 180mm dome. its better to use it with a 30mm port and crop rather than the recommend 20mm port..

 

but...

 

it probably not worth it to do all that and just use at 16mm instead with a 180mm port

 

or!

 

get a 230mm dome.. and all is well...

The 230mm dome has also issues with this lens. I doubt very much the performance is great and am not planning to make costly experiments

 

The 230mm dome centre is at least 2.5 cm behind the line where the glass is cut this means 35mm or more extension is required.

 

If you shorten this to 30mm as per port chart you obtain the same result of the 180 wide angle port in terms of position a small increase of 1cm of curvature radius no vignette and you have spent £1,000 more for likely intangible IQ improvement

 

The 180 wide angle port with the design it has (conical part behind the glass) is actually a better port for majority of the lenses on the market

 

Edited April 26, 20241 yr by Interceptor121

oookay 🙂

The main benefit of this 14mm 1.8 topside is that it is tack corner sharp wide open. Talk astrophotography.  So it’s pointless to consider its use underwater in the dome no matter the extension when you have to stop it down to like F13 to get something that reminds you of readable corners. Plus this wide rectilinear is useless for composition except of wrecks interiors and even that carefully. You get much better results with Nauticam wwl or wacp and mediocre lens. I would like to see though how this lens performs in WACP2 if open.  That could be interesting. 

14 minutes ago, RomiK said:

The main benefit of this 14mm 1.8 topside is that it is tack corner sharp wide open. Talk astrophotography.  So it’s pointless to consider its use underwater in the dome no matter the extension when you have to stop it down to like F13 to get something that reminds you of readable corners. Plus this wide rectilinear is useless for composition except of wrecks interiors and even that carefully. You get much better results with Nauticam wwl or wacp and mediocre lens. I would like to see though how this lens performs in WACP2 if open.  That could be interesting. 

The wet optics have the same issues and you need to stop them down to f/11 they look different because they are distorted but they don't look any better

 

In fact some of my rectilinear lenses look way better than the water contact optics

https://wordpress.com/post/interceptor121.com/76548

 

you don't get better results out of water contact and mediocre optics because well the optics are mediocre and they do not get any better with something added on top

 

Rectilinear super wide are interesting for split shots which look funy with distorted optics 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

The wet optics have the same issues and you need to stop them down to f/11 they look different because they are distorted but they don't look any better

 

In fact some of my rectilinear lenses look way better than the water contact optics

https://wordpress.com/post/interceptor121.com/76548

 

you don't get better results out of water contact and mediocre optics because well the optics are mediocre and they do not get any better with something added on top

 

Rectilinear super wide are interesting for split shots which look funy with distorted optics 

 

 

 

True for split shots one must choose the framing carefully though. I wasn’t quite happy with extremely stretched corners on a lot of shots so I think WWL WACP provide better wide angle experience.   I was hoping to use this lens open for art of light only to realize that it is not meant to be. That’s why I would like to see results on WACP2 open. 

Just now, RomiK said:

 

True for split shots one must choose the framing carefully though. I wasn’t quite happy with extremely stretched corners on a lot of shots so I think WWL WACP provide better wide angle experience.   I was hoping to use this lens open for art of light only to realize that it is not meant to be. That’s why I would like to see results on WACP2 open. 

WACP-2 does not focus in air

 

Stretched corners are typical result of wrong ports set up. When domes are properly positioned they perform well also at f/8

 

The issue with close up shots is field of curvature, you focus on the subject and then something else closer is blurry as result but this happens also with fisheye except those lenses are already curved so the two effects compensate somehow - this does not make edges any better

 

 

 

For the owners of the Sony 14mm F/1.8 I have rerun my model

I can confirm an extension of 30mm with the 230mm dome should produce some marginally better results than the 180 wide angle port with 30mm (which vignettes on the petal as it is 7.8mm too short)

Now considering that other than 14mm there are no super wide lenses (wider than 16mm) that work properly in any dome you need to consider if you are in the Sony system if you really want to use this lens if this is worth buying the 230mm port

Obviously once you buy the 230mm port you do get the benefit that it works with all the other lenses you get however there is no such a quality improvement as the radius is only 1cm longer than the 180mm wide angle port

I am interested mostly in this lens for split shots and I am afraid a bespoke 12" solution is what is required...

12 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

WACP-2 does not focus in air

 

Nauticam says otherwise 🙈

 

 

 

12 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

 

Stretched corners are typical result of wrong ports set up. When domes are properly positioned they perform well also at f/8

 

The issue with close up shots is field of curvature, you focus on the subject and then something else closer is blurry as result but this happens also with fisheye except those lenses are already curved so the two effects compensate somehow - this does not make edges any better

 

 

 

 

It may be personal preference, by stretched corners I meant mostly fins/legs on you sample above or fins on this sample below

 

 

 

 

First of all Nauticam is an excellent company and they do extensive testing to provide the best information they can based on the tank tests. Few manufactures include any extension advise that is not in 10mm increment so very few recommend a 5mm addition to their recommendations. To add to the confusion with Sony full frame housings many ports require the N100 to N120 35.5 port adapter II so when you say the Sony FE 14mm F/1.8 requires 30mm of extension you really have 65.5mm of extension.

 

Regarding the Nauticam WACP-2 the fact that it will auto focus above water does not always imply that it will actually work in the way you would think. All of the WWL and WACP lens AF out of the water but the conclusion should not be that the images will be in sharp focus. Since I have actually used the WACP-2 and the only real reason you would want to use it above water is for splits this is what happened in the real world. First I had to use a Childs life vest to help hold it half out of the water because it weights around 15 pounds. Second you need to chose a hyper focal distance and focus on that because trying to AF on something about or below is not easy at all. So if you want to focus closeup Set your lens at F/22 and focus on your hand them lock focus in manual so the distance won't change they shoot. For more distant shots focus on a fin and relock This can be a bit frustrating while trying to hold the system steady.

 

Not included in any of the posts above is what you do about a lens that no one is supporting like the new Laowa 10mm F/2.8 or many others. At that point you need to revert to the system 121 uses or for the math challenged like me who have a pool in the backyard jump in and see what works best. Since I have probably reviewed more lenses than anyone on this site I will tell you without hesitation that testing in the pool is always the first step for any of my reviews. I always start with the Manufactures recommendations but I can assure you they are sometimes wrong. 

 

Last lenses with the closest minimum focus distance will beat out other lenses in any given port almost exclusively. So for instance 121 and I have both used the Tamron 17-28mm F/2.8 that focuses at 17mm in the 19cm range extensively enough to recommend it over many of the much more expensive 16-35mm's both F2.8 and F/4. The 17-28mm works even better in a 180mm dome. However in the same 180 dome the Sigma 17mm F/4 with 12cm minimum focus distance is noticeably better and can even be used in a 140mm port with dissent results.

 

Now on to the Sony FE 14mm F/1.8 same same with the results, you are dealing with a lens that focuses to 25cm hard to get stellar performance even in a 230mm dome while the Rokinon 14mm F/2.8 that focuses to 20cm I had better results in an acrylic eight inch port with Aquatica housing and 28.5mm of extension.

 

Not everything is apples to apples so sometimes you just need to DIY your calculations and hope for the best results possible.