Sony FE 14mm F1.8 GM in 180mm glass Nauticam port + 20mm extension real performance samples

[RomiK]

I started this topic to make it easier for users to search for answers. Please don't judge the images 🙈 they are here do showcase the lens optical performance in Nauticam's recommended setup. I used this lens on what supposed to be a check dive turned into a spectacular manta show in Addu atoll and the next boring dive next to a cleaning station.

 

Except for one the images are uncropped - the entire frame.

 

I would be anxious to see samples from this lens would provide on WACP-2 wide open to observe what - if any - benefits would water corrected optics bring. The real pictures would be awesome, not speculations and theories.

 

Good luck anyone selecting their lenses 🤙

[Guest]

The edges are blurry even at f/16

The wide angle port 180mm does not contain the lens field of view.

The ideal extension would be 40mm however the lens would vignette

It works at 30mm much better but at 20mm as for those examples it is not great

In general though you are not going to be able to shoot a 14mm lens wider than f/8 with any type of adapter

[RomiK]

13 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

The edges are blurry even at f/16

The wide angle port 180mm does not contain the lens field of view.

The ideal extension would be 40mm however the lens would vignette

It works at 30mm much better but at 20mm as for those examples it is not great

In general though you are not going to be able to shoot a 14mm lens wider than f/8 with any type of adapter

Do you have pictures with 30mm or 40mm extension so you can back up what you say? I said no speculations and theories to muddy up this thread please. It is a sample thread intended to help people make decisions without external confusions. Thank you.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, RomiK said:

Do you have pictures with 30mm or 40mm extension so you can back up what you say? I said no speculations and theories to muddy up this thread please. It is a sample thread intended to help people make decisions without external confusions. Thank you.

I shot a ruler in the sink there is nothing more proving for a lens than shooting at minimum distance. Shooting in the sea does not allow for objective measures as you dont have targets on the focal plane so you are also victim of depth of field.

If you want to see how a lens performs you need to go into a pool and shoot in controlled conditions

Even shooting in your bathtub is better

 

Obviously shooting at f/6.3 etc does not feature underwater with a rectilinear lens

Your edges looks really poor even at f/16 because the dome is way off the right position. 2cm is quite a lot and the lens corrections are trying to counter the extra barrel distortion plus you have the usual field of curvature problems

 

 

 

[RomiK]

5 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

I shot a ruler in the sink there is nothing more proving for a lens than shooting at minimum distance. Shooting in the sea does not allow for objective measures as you dont have targets on the focal plane so you are also victim of depth of field.

If you want to see how a lens performs you need to go into a pool and shoot in controlled conditions

Even shooting in your bathtub is better

 

are you for real? 🤦‍♀️ bathtub or pool vs the real conditions? 

 

5 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

 

Obviously shooting at f/6.3 etc does not feature underwater with a rectilinear lens

Your edges looks really poor even at f/16 because the dome is way off the right position. 2cm is quite a lot and the lens corrections are trying to counter the extra barrel distortion plus you have the usual field of curvature problems

 

 

 

 

I guess folks over at Nauticam have no clue on what to recommend to users of their products... They probably have no clue designing their products either... 🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, RomiK said:

 

are you for real? 🤦‍♀️ bathtub or pool vs the real conditions? 

 

 

I guess folks over at Nauticam have no clue on what to recommend to users of their products... They probably have no clue designing their products either... 🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

 

 

There is a clear competence gap between me and you. 

I wonder if there is a way to ignore a user so that I no longer see your posts

Goodbye

 

[fruehaufsteher2]

121 at it’s best. Always good to have one “knowsbetterthaneveryone” here…

 

I don’t agree. Even wide f=7.1 open the quality is quite good. 

[hellhole]

i think nauticam knows what they are doing..

 

if you look at the port chart... they clearly indicate the blue words and a * the 'Recommended Nauticam underwater optics based on best underwater optical performance' with the WACP2 set up.  The other "blue words" set ups probably will also give you good optics but you have to remove the shade , which they shared.

 

the black * recommended "Recommended Port System" is the 230mm port option.  i think that means it will work best if you don't want to go the WACP path.  its good.. but not as good as the WACP

 

as no one has a WACP to show that there is no vig or any blurry at the edge. neither has a 40mm to show that 230mm will also not have that blurry edge.  

 

i look at all the info so far... tell me nauticam is right...  🙂 till proven not so ...

 

show me that a 14mm sony with 30mm/40mm with 230 dome is not as good as a 16-35mm with 230mm dome.  this two being the "recommended port system' not the best optics.. but recommended... i would think will be the similar... sharp in the middle.. blurry at the edge... but.. the 14mm is wider...so.... 🙂

[Guest]

2 hours ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

121 at it’s best. Always good to have one “knowsbetterthaneveryone” here…

 

I don’t agree. Even wide f=7.1 open the quality is quite good. 

Your standards are underwhelming low

[Chris Ross]

11 hours ago, hellhole said:

i think nauticam knows what they are doing..

 

if you look at the port chart... they clearly indicate the blue words and a * the 'Recommended Nauticam underwater optics based on best underwater optical performance' with the WACP2 set up.  The other "blue words" set ups probably will also give you good optics but you have to remove the shade , which they shared.

 

the black * recommended "Recommended Port System" is the 230mm port option.  i think that means it will work best if you don't want to go the WACP path.  its good.. but not as good as the WACP

 

as no one has a WACP to show that there is no vig or any blurry at the edge. neither has a 40mm to show that 230mm will also not have that blurry edge.  

 

i look at all the info so far... tell me nauticam is right...  🙂 till proven not so ...

 

show me that a 14mm sony with 30mm/40mm with 230 dome is not as good as a 16-35mm with 230mm dome.  this two being the "recommended port system' not the best optics.. but recommended... i would think will be the similar... sharp in the middle.. blurry at the edge... but.. the 14mm is wider...so.... 🙂

Nauticam no doubt knows exactly what they are doing, however most port choices are compromises.  They won't for example usually recommend a port combination that vignettes.  They have a standard procedure to decide which port/ring combination to suggest, I understand this is using a slide with test port setup.  

 

You only have to look at the large number of options listed in just the Sony port chart to see how many combinations they would need to test all of which takes time and money to do.  Don't forget also that the number of people doing UW photography at this level is quite small and they are spread out across  6 or 7 main systems, more if you count the mirrorless systems of Canon/Nikon.  So a niche lens like the 14mm f1.8 might be used by a handful of people.

 

What Massimo is doing is applying dome port theory which states the entrance pupil should be placed at the dome centre of curvature.  

 

Many of the ports sold are also compromises, many are not full hemispheres which means that centre of curvature is placed down inside the extension ring. Many wide angle lenses have the entrance pupil right up front.  The port geometry often means that the lens needs to be pushed forward of the ideal position to stop vignetting.  This means that the positioning is not ideal.  I've done calculations and measurements of some of my combinations out of interest, for example the Panasonic 7-14 lens sits the exit pupil about 20mm or so ahead of the centre of curvature of the Zen 170mm dome to avoid vignetting.

 

There is no doubt the non-ideal combinations work and many people are happy with the results, that doesn't mean they can't be improved upon.  the effects reported are real if the entrance pupil isn't positioned right.  This is after all why Nauticam only applies a * to one combination and the reason is due to the dome port theory as discussed here.

 

Some people can relate very well to the maths needed to do these calculations, others prefer to look at an image and say that's good enough, both ways are actually valid ways of coming up with a combination that the individual is happy with.

[Chris Ross]

16 hours ago, RomiK said:

 

are you for real? 🤦‍♀️ bathtub or pool vs the real conditions? 

 

 

I guess folks over at Nauticam have no clue on what to recommend to users of their products... They probably have no clue designing their products either... 🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

 

You do know that Nauticam decides which extension to recommend by testing in a tank?  Thye also use photos taken with their equipment for advertising.

 

There is a valid reason for doing testing in the pool, mainly being that you can shoot a flat surface to check the corners more readily.  In the real world the corners might be much closer to you than the subject and you don't know if the blur is due falling out of the depth of field, the optics or both. 

 

Different people have different ways they like to use to evaluate which lenses to use, some are happy saying that the photo they just saw looked great, others want the sharpest field across the frame and have the time and patience to do their own tests and the mathematical bent to do the calculations.  Both are equally valid as it is up to the individual to decide what is good enough for them.

 

[RomiK]

2 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

 

Different people have different ways they like to use to evaluate which lenses to use, some are happy saying that the photo they just saw looked great, others want the sharpest field across the frame and have the time and patience to do their own tests and the mathematical bent to do the calculations.  Both are equally valid as it is up to the individual to decide what is good enough for them.

 

ummm me thinks that this is what this thread topic was about - let readers decide themselves with no agenda.. that is until this 121 character decided to spoil it... 

 

[RomiK]

20 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

 

There is a clear competence gap between me and you. 

I wonder if there is a way to ignore a user so that I no longer see your posts

Goodbye

 

 

yes there is, the forum has 'ignore' feature. I encourage you to use it 👍

[Chris Ross]

4 hours ago, RomiK said:

ummm me thinks that this is what this thread topic was about - let readers decide themselves with no agenda.. that is until this 121 character decided to spoil it... 

 

 

Hi Roman, if that's indeed your aim then phrases like: 

 

" Are you for real? 🤦‍♀️ bathtub or pool vs the real conditions? 

 

 

I guess folks over at Nauticam have no clue on what to recommend to users of their products... They probably have no clue designing their products either... 🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️"

 

really don't fit with that aim.

 

If you want readers to decide for themselves seems like it would be better to say:

 

"I actually prefer to see comparison shots taken on dives of real subjects, Pool tests don't mean a lot to me"

 

[RomiK]

5 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

 

Hi Roman, if that's indeed your aim then phrases like: 

 

" Are you for real? 🤦‍♀️ bathtub or pool vs the real conditions? 

 

 

I guess folks over at Nauticam have no clue on what to recommend to users of their products... They probably have no clue designing their products either... 🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️"

 

really don't fit with that aim.

 

If you want readers to decide for themselves seems like it would be better to say:

 

"I actually prefer to see comparison shots taken on dives of real subjects, Pool tests don't mean a lot to me"

 

I thought Chris, that forum admins are to be impartial. So since you quoted me above how impolite I was what if you would step a little back up in the thread and see that in the topic itself I asked for just samples and no theories no speculations and after his first rude response I asked him again politely and yet he continued in his rambling like some kind of ignorant sociopath? 🤷‍♀️

Edited April 28 by RomiK

[Klaus]

I suggest using the personal message feature for this kind of exchange.

[TimG]

Thank you, Klaus. 

[Chris Ross]

19 hours ago, RomiK said:

I thought Chris, that forum admins are to be impartial. So since you quoted me above how impolite I was what if you would step a little back up in the thread and see that in the topic itself I asked for just samples and no theories no speculations and after his first rude response I asked him again politely and yet he continued in his rambling like some kind of ignorant sociopath? 🤷‍♀️

Roman, it has nothing to do with who started it, if someone else insults you it doesn't mean you get to insult them back.  It gets a bit tiring when people seem to not get how to be civil to each other.    Again play nice please - both parties!

[Adventurer]

On 4/27/2024 at 11:24 AM, RomiK said:

are you for real? 🤦‍♀️ bathtub or pool vs the real conditions? 

Romy, actually I think Interceptor did not intend to insult you or your photographic work. So please be gentle with each other.

 

On the fact side: if you or somebody else wants to know if you got the best technical equipment combination, you have to go bathtub/pool or lab test.

 

Interceptor pointed that out correctly.

 

The dynamics involved in real imaging on the reef are too flexible to know what the gear will be able to deliver at best.

 

There is so strong impact by the visibility conditions for example.

 

Furthermore many photographers shoot their lens and dome too wide open or focus mispositioned.

 

A lot of lenses may be used, but should not be used behind a dome for maximum image quality.

Of course manufacturers will house these for you anyway and not go into a deep and cumbersome discussion with a customer who has his own opinion about these things and is about to buy.