I don't own the Sony or any Canon lenses, so this is really just academic interest, but wondering which adapter works best to use a Canon 8-15 on the Sony, and how good the focus speed an accuracy really are with any of the adapters, or if it is just a lost cause.

 

 

Edited June 2, 20241 yr by JohnD

Metabones Canon EF to Sony E mark 5 adapters work great

58 minutes ago, JohnD said:

I don't own the Sony or any Canon lenses, so this is really just academic interest, but wondering which adapter works best to use a Canon 8-15 on the Sony, and how good the focus speed an accuracy really are with any of the adapters, or if it is just a lost cause.

 

 

Agree about the Metabone V.  I also use the Sigma MC-11 with the Canon 8-15, but it has been reported it may not refocus in between repetitive burst frames.  Overall I have found the auto focus to be very fast and accurate.

 

With that said, I'm a huge fan of using Sony native glass whenever possible.  (Unfortunately, there is no native fisheye)  While these adapters perform very well, native lenses removes one extra link in the chain.

 

Good luck!

 

Edited June 2, 20241 yr by ChipBPhoto

I can report only for Sony A7R5, not on earlier versions: I have the Metabones V adapter and it works o.k. (with and without 1.4x TC)...

 

Wolfgang

I see no sign that the major manufacturers have any interest in fisheye lenses, at least in the near future.  It also seems that the performance of DSLR fisheyes on adapters is OK at best.  I wonder if, as more and more people use mirrorless cameras, we will end up moving away from fisheye lenses underwater, at least at the hobbyist level as opposed to the professional and hardcore enthusiasts.

 

I am not stating a position, just thinking about this.  A canon 8-15 lens is about US$1200 and a Metabones V is $400.  Add whatever extension rings and a port are needed, along with sales tax and we are talking about $3000 for an "OK" lens that many say is bested by a WWL and a kit lens.

 

Don't get me wrong...I am very fond of my 8-15 Nikkor on my D500, but in mirrorless land, I wonder if we are heading in a different direction and fisheye lenses will just be a thing of the past?

 

Unfortunately, the fisheye is a very specialized lens for above water.  While the underwater community is strong, it does not appear to have enough demand to encourage manufacturers the make new versions.  The exception is Sigma who just released a Sony FE mount fisheye.  The major downside is it will not focus close, which is a key requirement for our needs.  This renders it useless for uw.
 

I agree that the new Nauticam water contact lenses are a game changer.  The new FCP-1, while expensive at about $7K USD, has provided a quite flexible, although large 170-180 degree solution.  Its unprecedented versatility is driving the demand.

 

My personal go-to is either a WACP-C or WWL (for travel), but the Canon 8-15 is still a useful tool with the 140 dome for small and effective ultra-wide needs.  

Edited June 5, 20241 yr by ChipBPhoto

On 6/5/2024 at 8:47 PM, ChipBPhoto said:

Unfortunately, the fisheye is a very specialized lens for above water.  While the underwater community is strong, it does not appear to have enough demand to encourage manufacturers the make new versions.  The exception is Sigma who just released a Sony FE mount fisheye.  The major downside is it will not focus close, which is a key requirement for our needs.  This renders it useless for uw.

While the underwater community is strong, Sigma's behavior appears to indicate that the astrophotography community is stronger

3 hours ago, Barmaglot said:

While the underwater community is strong, Sigma's behavior appears to indicate that the astrophotography community is stronger

Crazy, isn’t it?!? 😳 😂

the AF for fisheye lenses is not particularly challenging, the Metabones with my olympus and 8-15 is fine for AF.  I think the Metabones is a viable solution if you want to use a fisheye.

4 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

the AF for fisheye lenses is not particularly challenging, the Metabones with my olympus and 8-15 is fine for AF.  I think the Metabones is a viable solution if you want to use a fisheye.

For stills, yeah, but its video capabilities are somewhat limited. To be fair, on the other hand, I understand that fisheye is not particularly popular for video.

7 hours ago, Barmaglot said:

For stills, yeah, but its video capabilities are somewhat limited. To be fair, on the other hand, I understand that fisheye is not particularly popular for video.

Yes, but even then you can back button focus as the depth of field is enough, video and fisheyes don't mix well it seems.

... and I have 8-15 sitting home (together with other Canon L glass) and thinking 'why on earth did I not do Canon route for UW and bought into A1 system'🙈... oh wait, R7 wasn't available 2 years back and R5 was overheating back then... 🙈 never mind that A1 overheats too... although at 4k120 in 30C water ... but still 🙈 Back to 8-15 on Sony - I think it's not worth it with adapters insufficiencies... 28-60+WWL1 will get you there much better. And for dives where you can expect unexpected the 20-70 in 180mm glass is ultimate portable choice IMHO.

A couple of questions I was always curious about (but was too afraid to ask 🙂):

• How is a WWL-1 an alternative to a fisheye lens? 130° FOV vs 180° is substantially different. Different framing, you need to be further away from the subject, need to drive flashes stronger, different lens distortion, ... I'd understand if WWL-1 would be suggested as an alternative to 16-35 (or 10-24 on APS-C), but usually it's not. And then there's that inconvenience of burping the wet lens. I was always so annoyed when I needed to do that on my previous compact camera system, especially since I didn't have a bayonet mount. Really "fun" to do in a deep water where you can drop it and never find it again.
• How come only Canon 8-15 is used on modern Sony mirrorless systems, why not Nikon 8-15?
• How come a Kenko 1.4x teleconverter is used, when both Canon and Nikon offer excellent 1.4x teleconverters? Is Kenko better, cheaper?

18 minutes ago, Andrej Oblak said:

A couple of questions I was always curious about (but was too afraid to ask 🙂😞

• How is a WWL-1 an alternative to a fisheye lens? 130° FOV vs 180° is substantially different. Different framing, you need to be further away from the subject, need to drive flashes stronger, different lens distortion, ... I'd understand if WWL-1 would be suggested as an alternative to 16-35 (or 10-24 on APS-C), but usually it's not. And then there's that inconvenience of burping the wet lens. I was always so annoyed when I needed to do that on my previous compact camera system, especially since I didn't have a bayonet mount. Really "fun" to do in a deep water where you can drop it and never find it again.

=> I do not think that 180° fisheye is  substitute for 130° (fisheye as WWL/WACP is) and narrower. I use Canon 8-15mm and WACP-C alteratively on A7R5, depending on situation...

 

• How come only Canon 8-15 is used on modern Sony mirrorless systems, why not Nikon 8-15?

=> I have no comparison to Nikon 8-15, but Canon 8-15mm with Metabones V works (almost) as good as a native lens on A7R5 for photos. I did not do much videos with this combo and use "thumb" AF during video from time to time, but these sequences have to be cutted out as shortly blurry. I cannot imagine that permanent continuous AF would work for any camera/lens combo today, but better use MF for video if serious with video.. ...

 

• How come a Kenko 1.4x teleconverter is used, when both Canon and Nikon offer excellent 1.4x teleconverters? Is Kenko better, cheaper?

=> The native TCs are not compatible with the 8-15mm fisheye lenses. Only Kenko TCs are compatible mechanically. Electronically I read about problems of some kenko adapters with the Nikon fisheye here...

 

Edited June 10, 20241 yr by Architeuthis

59 minutes ago, Andrej Oblak said:

A couple of questions I was always curious about (but was too afraid to ask 🙂😞

• How is a WWL-1 an alternative to a fisheye lens? 130° FOV vs 180° is substantially different. Different framing, you need to be further away from the subject, need to drive flashes stronger, different lens distortion, ... I'd understand if WWL-1 would be suggested as an alternative to 16-35 (or 10-24 on APS-C), but usually it's not. And then there's that inconvenience of burping the wet lens. I was always so annoyed when I needed to do that on my previous compact camera system, especially since I didn't have a bayonet mount. Really "fun" to do in a deep water where you can drop it and never find it again.
• How come only Canon 8-15 is used on modern Sony mirrorless systems, why not Nikon 8-15?
• How come a Kenko 1.4x teleconverter is used, when both Canon and Nikon offer excellent 1.4x teleconverters? Is Kenko better, cheaper?

 

WWL-1B is not that heavy UW, it's like negative 100ish grams so even if it would slip away it would graciously 🤣 slide down and not drop like a stone. Plus has a really big shade to hold comfortably. 

 

I would be questioning need for 180 fisheye in the first place. Yes it may offer immersive images but unless the subject is a shark at feeding station the immersive factor is minuscule compared to 130 at wide angle in my eyes. Yes, in a probe form the EMWL160 is amazing, I am thinking of adding - replacing - to my EMWL130 🤑🤑🤑. But in a dome form factor one can't get close enough in a good angle to subject unless it's a whale 🤣

 

It would be interesting to see a screenshot of Lightroom metadata browser showing the range of focal lengths counts from keeper images taken by 8-15 with 1.4x Kenko. I dare to say we might see higher numbers towards 15mm end 🙂 

 

Plus the distortion ... great for some appalling boring for others 🤷‍♂️ Unless it's a dedicated dive I think WWL is more versatile. Here samples from last week at 28mm i.e. 130deg.

 

 

Edited June 10, 20241 yr by RomiK

3 hours ago, Andrej Oblak said:

A couple of questions I was always curious about (but was too afraid to ask 🙂😞

• How is a WWL-1 an alternative to a fisheye lens? 130° FOV vs 180° is substantially different. Different framing, you need to be further away from the subject, need to drive flashes stronger, different lens distortion, ... I'd understand if WWL-1 would be suggested as an alternative to 16-35 (or 10-24 on APS-C), but usually it's not. And then there's that inconvenience of burping the wet lens. I was always so annoyed when I needed to do that on my previous compact camera system, especially since I didn't have a bayonet mount. Really "fun" to do in a deep water where you can drop it and never find it again.
• How come only Canon 8-15 is used on modern Sony mirrorless systems, why not Nikon 8-15?

Thanks for asking some really good questions! 

 

Fisheye vs WWL:  The short answer is they are simply different tools.  As said, the fisheye allows the user to be extra close to a large subject such as a wreck, large coral structure, or school of fish.  The potential downside is one must be very close to fill the frame due to the ultra-wide 180 angle of view.  As an example, I had a shark literally bump my fisheye dome and the resulting image made the shark appear to be a distance away.  This is both good and bad, depending on the desired results.  There is also the “fisheye” effect in the image, or a naturally occurring distortion.  Straight lines, especially on the edges, will tend to bow outward.  This effect can also emphasize the subject to gain more attention by making it appear closer while the edges appear further away.  That is part of the charm of a fisheye.

 

The WWL-1 with a 130 AoV allows the frame to be filled in most scenes, plus gives a longer zoom range than most fisheye options.  Prior to water contact lenses, to get a true 130 AoV one would need to use something like a 10mm lens and typically a large dome on a FF system with very limited or no zoom ability. The WWL not only converts an inexpensive 28-60 lens to a 130 AoV, but also substantially sharpens it for uw use in a typically smaller package.  It is a game changer in providing more options.

 

With all that said, it really comes down to which “tool” best fits your needs and the desired perspective.  I still have my Canon 8-15 and 140 dome for dives when I want an ultra-wide view.  This was useful when I photo’s large coral off the walls of Cayman and entire wrecks.  My personal go-to, however, is the WWL-1B (or WACP-C for a dry port-no burping).  This system allows me to photo the widest range of subjects, including wrecks, fish schools, CFWA, and tiny subjects that will allow me to put the port right next to them. (Flamingo tongue, hermit crabs, etc.). It comes down to what fits your personal needs and diving style.

 

Canon vs Nikon 8-15:  I have always been a Canon user, so this was a natural switch for me.  I am told the Canon design is sharper than the comparable Nikon 8-15, but there may be others that have different thoughts.
 

Edited June 10, 20241 yr by ChipBPhoto

8 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

Yes, but even then you can back button focus as the depth of field is enough

Kinda sorta, you need to put the Metabones adapter into advanced mode for video AF to work at all, and this restricts it to central area of the frame for AF, and degrades it AF capabilities overall compared to green mode. If you leave it in green mode then in video mode it's manual focus only.

 

Thanks guys for all the answers 👍I still use Nikon D500 with Tokina 10-17mm (and occasionally Nikon 10.5mm - especially for cave photography) which gives me enough versatility, even for shooting sharks. I imagine that Kenko TC paired with 8-15mm fisheye gives you this versatility as well, albeit with a bit shorter zoom range. This weekend I used 10-24mm rectilinear after quite a long time (1+ years) and I admit I felt a bit lost at first. I had to forget all the "muscle memory" I gained from shooting with the fisheye - positioning, distance to subject, strobe power etc. That's why it seemed a bit unusual to see that WWL-1 can be used as an alternative to a fisheye 🙂 As @ChipBPhoto said - I see it more as a different tool than as a substitute.

 

1 hour ago, RomiK said:

WWL-1B is not that heavy UW, it's like negative 100ish grams so even if it would slip away it would graciously 🤣 slide down and not drop like a stone. Plus has a really big shade to hold comfortably.

 

I used AOI UWL-09 which was pretty heavy. Dropping it was my biggest fear, closely followed by accidentally cross threading it when reattaching it back to the port. Thankfully neither of these happened, but I must admit that my life is easier now when I don't have to do that anymore 🙂 In my opinion a bayonet mount is a must if you use wet lenses.

 

9 minutes ago, Andrej Oblak said:

 

 

I used AOI UWL-09 which was pretty heavy. Dropping it was my biggest fear, closely followed by accidentally cross threading it when reattaching it back to the port. Thankfully neither of these happened, but I must admit that my life is easier now when I don't have to do that anymore 🙂 In my opinion a bayonet mount is a must if you use wet lenses.

 

… and luckily WWL-1B is a bayonet only so now there is no excuse … 😂

1 hour ago, Andrej Oblak said:

I imagine that Kenko TC paired with 8-15mm fisheye gives you this versatility as well, albeit with a bit shorter zoom range.

Correct.  Without a TC the 8-15 basically becomes either a circular 8mm fisheye OR 15mm ultra-wide on a FF system.  The TC allows it to become basically a 12-21mm zoom in FF.  In the TC scenario I personally would lean more towards the WWL option for even greater flexibility.

 

1 hour ago, Andrej Oblak said:

This weekend I used 10-24mm rectilinear after quite a long time (1+ years) and I admit I felt a bit lost at first. I had to forget all the "muscle memory" I gained from shooting with the fisheye - positioning, distance to subject, strobe power etc.

Absolutely!  I agree that going from a DX fisheye to a DX 10-24 is a huge difference!  Bear in mind the 10-24 has a AoV of 109 on the wide end vs 180 on the fisheye.  Similarly, the 21 degrees difference in what you see at 109 with the 10-24 vs a WWL 130 is pretty substantial.  
 

While all are considered “wide” lenses, there is a difference between 180, 130, and 109 AoV for a wide lens.  (Sorry to throw in so many numbers) It comes down to how wide do you want, and what final image outcome, usage versatility, etc. do you personally want.

 

 

Edited June 10, 20241 yr by ChipBPhoto

3 hours ago, Andrej Oblak said:

How come a Kenko 1.4x teleconverter is used, when both Canon and Nikon offer excellent 1.4x teleconverters? Is Kenko better, cheaper?

 

Excellent question! I don't know about the Canon, but the Nikon TCs have a lens element that extends too far beyond the body of the TC for the Tokina to connect. I imagine the Canon might be the same.

50 minutes ago, TimG said:

 

Excellent question! I don't know about the Canon, but the Nikon TCs have a lens element that extends too far beyond the body of the TC for the Tokina to connect. I imagine the Canon might be the same.

Canon designed the connections so that their TCs would only work with certain longer Canon lenses. These include longer prime lenses such as the EF 135 and beyond, and longer zoom lenses such as 70-200 and 100-400.  Their TCs are not compatible with any 3rd party lenses. 
 

Kenko is the go-to TC option for Canon glass.  One would need to decide if the possible trade off of slight reduction in IQ is worth the zoom flexibility gains. 

Edited June 10, 20241 yr by ChipBPhoto

The Canon 8-15 is adapted more often I believe is due to the fact that Canon lenses are easier to adapt compared to Nikon F mount.  There are so many flavours of Nikon F mount as well which no doubt complicates things.  this link has some explanations:  https://briansmith.com/where-are-the-nikon-af-lens-adapters/

 

As far as fisheye goes it comes down to what you shoot and what effect you like, for me fisheye is unbeatable for reef scenics and CFWA.  I now use the Canon 8-15 on OM-1 which gives amazing versatility and effectively combines a full frame fisheye with a 7-14 (14-28mm full frame equivalent) lens.  Of course in full frame to get the same versatility you would be looking at adding a 1.4x to the 8-15 which doesn't have as much range or venturing into FCP which has it's own set of issues, cost possibly not the least of them?

Hi Chris,

 

Are you now using your OM1-1 underwater? I know you previously had the OM-D EM 1 ii underwater and the Om-1 above. If so I am interested in your thoughts, maybe on a different thread.

 

Thanks

John

On 6/13/2024 at 1:56 PM, John E said:

Hi Chris,

 

Are you now using your OM1-1 underwater? I know you previously had the OM-D EM 1 ii underwater and the Om-1 above. If so I am interested in your thoughts, maybe on a different thread.

 

Thanks

John

Hi John,

 

yes I'm using it now in a new Nauticam housing.  It's quite nice to use UW, though probably not any super compelling reason to upgrade.  The AF is better than the EM-1 MkII with the 60mm macro and I also bought the USB-C bulkhead so I could download images and charge the camera without removing from the housing.  Can't do the charging with the EM-1 MkII.   It means I don't need to remove the front port, Zoom gear and 8-15 lens every day just to change battery and get my images, I could leave it sealed for an entire trip if I don't want to change lenses.

 

I basically changed as my EM-1 mkII which was 6 years had a couple of times when it stopped responding and needed to pull the battery to get going again.  I could get it repaired but it only does it occasionally so finding the cause might be hard and getting stuck with the camera in the housing not responding didn't sound great.  I could also get another EM-1 II but it's a 7 yr old camera now and thought it better to put the repair cost towards the new housing.