Getting the most out of Olympus 12mm 2.0

[Andrzej Czyżyk]

Olympus 12mm 2.0 seems like a great companion to the Panasonic 8mm FE (sharing the same Nauticam 4.33" port and being so tiny).

I took some snorkelling snapshots with it and there are two issues that annoy me:

 

#1 The edge softness.

Wide open the edges are very soft. I found an old tread on Wetpixel with suggestion to use B+W 46mm NL5. Supposedly it gives sharp corners even wide open (the sample images from that thread are not available anymore).

I could not get hold of the B+W 46mm NL5. I tried Hoya 46mm +4 instead. It helped but I'm not fully happy. 

Should I keep trying to get the NL5 instead? Would it work better?

Is there anything else I could try (other than shooting it stopped down to f8)?

 

#2 Lens flare

Since I shot it at the surface and directly into the sun I got a lot of lens flare (as expected). It seems there is enough space between the dome port and the lens to fit some lens hood. Did anybody try that? Which lens hood fits the best?

[Davide DB]

@Chris Ross is way more technical than me... In the meantime 😉

 

Are you sure that sharp corners @F2 underwater do exist? (photo not video)

Looking at the Nauticam Port Chart I find:

 

null

 

 

Asterisk indicates the best option which is the 140mm dome (5,5"). This is 1" more than your dome and there is an extension ring. Probably this depends on dome length.

On my Pana 12-35 I have the suggested 6" dome. Even larger. At F2.8 I get a nice out of focus in video.

 

 

 

 

[Andrzej Czyżyk]

14 hours ago, Davide DB said:

Are you sure that sharp corners @F2 underwater do exist?

On the contrary, I was surprised to read in a thread that B+W NL5 could achieve that. Since I don't have one to try I was hoping that someone tested it and could share their opinion.

 

Nauticam's recommended option is quite expensive. I would be interested to hear from somebody who actually used it (140mm optical) and could compare to 4.33" acrylic, before I even consider that option.

Edited September 5, 2024 by Andrzej Czyżyk

[Davide DB]

I would be curious to see it inside the cheap 6" polycarbonate dome. I'm afraid it will vignettes. The lens is only 43mm long while the 12-35mm is 74mm. The 6" dome has a long collar.

I have the dome but IDK anyone with that lens.

 

 

 

 

[Chris Ross]

13 hours ago, Andrzej Czyżyk said:

On the contrary, I was surprised to read in a thread that B+W NL5 could achieve that. Since I don't have one to try I was hoping that someone tested it and could share their opinion.

 

Nauticam's recommended option is quite expensive. I would be interested to hear from somebody who actually used it (140mm optical) and could compare to 4.33" acrylic, before I even consider that option.

The issue may well be different ideas about what acceptable corners look like, but realistically no matter the lens f2 in a small dome is going to be hard on the corners.

[jkepic]

I like to carry the Olympus 12mm f/2 as a backup when I am limited on luggage. Quite like you I take it with me because it can share the same dome port as the fisheye. However, in my case the clear requirement is to use a glass dome port and specific extension rings. The Olympus 8mm f/1.8 is an absolutely perfect fisheye. The fisheye that brought me back to MFT. In mountain rivers where the Sony has trouble focusing the Oly works like a charm with this lens (AF never misses). So on my MFT setup with the 8mm fisheye I use a 17mm extension ring and for the 12mm f/2 I use a 20mm extension ring. I usually only use the 12mm f/2 as a backup lens, but specifically on a trip to the Galapagos in August I was glad I took it. Especially at Darwin Island, I used it a lot. With the 8mm f/1.8 in the 140mm glass dome port, you can even shoot at full aperture (optimally f=4). In the same dome port with 12mm f/2 with a 20mm extension ring (instead of 17mm one) I found f=4 minimal and f=5.6 optimal for my use. Anyway, 7-14mm f/2.8 in a large glass dome port is subjectively much better than 12mm f/2. In terms of image quality the best is 8mm f/1.8 followed by the 7-14mm f/2.8 and then the 14-42mm with WWL-1 and then the 12mm f/2. In terms of AF performance, the 8mm, 7-14mm, 12mm and last the 14-42 with WWL. However, as a backup companion for travel, the 12mm f/2 is a great solution (small, lightweight and can be operated in the same UW setup as the 8mm in case of need). Definitely go for the glass dome port. It might be interesting to try use the 12mm f/2 with the WWL-C (24mm FF equivalent) but I haven't had a chance to try it I only have the WWL-1 (28mm FF equivalent).

[Troporobo]

On 9/5/2024 at 4:42 AM, Andrzej Czyżyk said:

suggestion to use B+W 46mm NL5. Supposedly it gives sharp corners even wide open

I’m curious why adding a closeup lens would work this way for wide angle. It’s not explained in that old thread. Can anyone elaborate?

[bvanant]

https://oceanity.com.au/articles/view/understanding-flat-port-and-dome-port-theory

 

will get you started. The diopter shortens the minimum focus length for your virtual image.

https://www.uwphotographyguide.com/dome-port-optics#:~:text=A %2B4 diopter is the,B%26W diopters are highly rated.

 

has more info. 

Bill

[Troporobo]

Thanks a lot Bill, these two articles are very helpful.  I think I’ve got it now. 

[turandot]

Anyone else who can tell us about the experience of underwater photography with this lens? I would like to use it as a complement to the Olympus 8mm fisheye.

 

Any alternative options to the 12mm and 8mm fisheye for wide-angle photography?

Edited February 28 by turandot

[Chris Ross]

  

56 minutes ago, turandot said:

Anyone else who can tell us about the experience of underwater photography with this lens? I would like to use it as a complement to the Olympus 8mm fisheye.

 

Any alternative options to the 12mm and 8mm fisheye for wide-angle photography?

 

 

There's quite a few.  The 12mm is good in that it works OK in a small dome I believe.  The 12-40 and 12-45 are both great lenses, probably need a 170mm dome at least for them though and there's the 8-25mm as well.

 

Or adapting the Canon EF 8-15 lens is a great solution.  On m43 this gives you a lens that goes from a full frame fisheye all the way through to a 14mm lens (28mm full frame equivalent) in field of view.  So it is effectively a 8mm fisheye combined with a 7-14mm lens (with barrel distrortion) in terms of field of view.

[Wapiti]

4 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

  

 

 

 The 12-40 and 12-45 are both great lenses, probably need a 170mm dome at least for them though and there's the 8-25mm as well.

 

 

I have no experience with the 12mm prime, but I can confirm that the 12-45 works just great in a small dome with AOI PEN style housings.  While I prefer the Inon dome meant for the Oly 8mm, I also tested it with the Zen dome meant for the 9-18.  Both work great, but domes for the 8mm allow you to cut down on the number of ports in your kit.  You will, however, need an extension ring.  Since adopting the 12-45, my 12-40 and 170mm dome stay home collecting dust.  Speaking of, the 170mm dome doesn't work so good with the 8-25; an 8" dome is better, but at that point you're so big and floating that you might as well go small and swim back a bit.  I know, easier said than done- sometimes you just need wide rectilinear.

[turandot]

I have both lenses for land with OMD EM5.3, the 12-45 and the 8-25 but I haven't tried them for underwater. I also have 8mm fisheye with the small 4.33 nauticam domo but I'm not convinced by the barrel effect it produces. I am going to look at the options you have proposed. I'm going to look at the Nauticam Port Chart settings map for these lenses, but it won't be cheap unfortunately.

 

If I decide to install the nauticam 7" dome for 12-45mm f/4 PRO, what converted FOV would be left for wide angle considering that at 12mm (24mm in 35mm) it has an lens FOV of 84º on the land?

 

Edited March 1 by turandot

[JohnC]

Has anyone tried the 12mm f2 Olympus with the WWL-C? For M4/3 this strikes me as the (optically) best lens for it.

[John Liddiard]

I use the kit 14-42 pancake lens with a WWL. Very crisp at 14mm but needs to be perfectly aligned with the port. Whilst there are many other factors involved, I would guess the slightly wider 12mm lens could be more even more sensitive to alignment.

[Chris Ross]

On 3/1/2025 at 8:33 PM, turandot said:

I have both lenses for land with OMD EM5.3, the 12-45 and the 8-25 but I haven't tried them for underwater. I also have 8mm fisheye with the small 4.33 nauticam domo but I'm not convinced by the barrel effect it produces. I am going to look at the options you have proposed. I'm going to look at the Nauticam Port Chart settings map for these lenses, but it won't be cheap unfortunately.

 

If I decide to install the nauticam 7" dome for 12-45mm f/4 PRO, what converted FOV would be left for wide angle considering that at 12mm (24mm in 35mm) it has an lens FOV of 84º on the land?

 

I wouldn't necessarily go with the 7"dome, I've not used it but know several who have and it's quite big and floaty.   I have the Zen 170mm dome and it's more compact, though if you want to use the 8-25 you need a N120 version with adapter with the lens installed from the front as the front end of the lens won't fit through the  N85 port.  Same problem with the 7"dome.  So if you think you might want to use the 8-25 or a 7-14 f2.8 then you need to consider this upfront.  

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "what converted field of view would be left"?  You get the full 24mm full frame equivalent field  with this lens in any of the domes.  It's not particularly wide UW.  I use it a bit diving in Sydney(temperate waters), but rarely otherwise.

 

I'm not sure what your objection to the fisheye lens is, the barrel distortion only is a problem if there are straight lines in the pic and they are placed towards the edges.  3 main things would be wrecks, the water line at the surface  and the bottom if it is in the frame, but for the most part it's not noticeable.  With the 8-15 lens the barrel distortion reduces progressively as you zoom in. 

 

What subjects are you wanting to shoot to complement the fisheye?

[turandot]

12 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "what converted field of view would be left"?  You get the full 24mm full frame equivalent field  with this lens in any of the domes.  It's not particularly wide UW.  I use it a bit diving in Sydney(temperate waters), but rarely otherwise.

I think it was my fault, the FOV does not change with the dome, it returns the angle of the target on the land and I am not wrong.

 

By the way, I'm going to rule out the use of the 7" dome. Thank you Chriss for your recommendations.

 

I would like to have a lens for everything, maybe for that the best solution is the 14-42EZ (28-84mm) lens with wet lenses.

Edited March 3 by turandot

[turandot]

12 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

What subjects are you wanting to shoot to complement the fisheye?

 

My current setup is: Olympus 8mm Pro fisheye lens for almost everything with N85 4.33" Acrylic Fisheye Dome Port and Olympus 60mm with N85 Macro Port 65 for macro.

 

I think the 8mm fisheye lens is too far away from objects and that I need to get very close.

[Chris Ross]

1 hour ago, turandot said:

I think the 8mm fisheye lens is too far away from objects and that I need to get very close.

 

which is the actual attraction of the fisheye less water between you and your subject.  But of course there are limits and large animals might be too far away  for a full frame fisheye, but it has no rival for reef scenics.  

 

This is why I moved to the 8-15 on an adapter , as I said it covers Fisheye, the wider part of the WWL through to a covering a 7-14mm rectilinear at least in field of view.  It's not for everyone as it gets expensive quite quickly with the N85-N120 adapter, extension ring, port plus the metabones and the lens itself, it's also quite heavy compared to a small dome alone.  But if found it excellent on my last trip to Papua New Guinea.   

 

A WWL could be a good option, but it doesn't match a 180° diagonal fisheye for reef scenics.   Certainly it's good on the wide end, but see people saying the long half of the zoom range is not so sharp.

[Architeuthis]

40 minutes ago, Chris Ross said:

 

which is the actual attraction of the fisheye less water between you and your subject.  But of course there are limits and large animals might be too far away  for a full frame fisheye, but it has no rival for reef scenics.  

 

This is why I moved to the 8-15 on an adapter , as I said it covers Fisheye, the wider part of the WWL through to a covering a 7-14mm rectilinear at least in field of view.  It's not for everyone as it gets expensive quite quickly with the N85-N120 adapter, extension ring, port plus the metabones and the lens itself, it's also quite heavy compared to a small dome alone.  But if found it excellent on my last trip to Papua New Guinea.   

 

A WWL could be a good option, but it doesn't match a 180° diagonal fisheye for reef scenics.   Certainly it's good on the wide end, but see people saying the long half of the zoom range is not so sharp.

 

I am not sure that this is really "very expensive", but I did not count all the positions together for comparison. I, personally, think this is the optimum WA setup for MFT...

 

 

The think the different solutions would be:

 

#1.: 8mm MFT fisheye with small domeport plus another, additional, solution (e.g. rectilinear WA (8-25mm) with big domeport & extensions (e.g. Zen DP170), maybe better WWL-1B plus flatport/standardzoom).

=> A lot to carry around for travelling, also the second (WA) rig UW is big&heavy...

=> One has to decide before the dive whether to go "All In" (180° diagonal, 😃) or less wide...

 

#2.: Canon 8-15mm, 1x Metabones adapter with 140mm domeport (via N85/N120 34.7mm adapter plus 30mm N120 extension)

=> Probably everything many people, including me, ever want for UW WA

 

#3.: Tokina 10-17mm, 0.71x Metabones speedbooster, 100mm Zen domeport (via N85/N120 34.7mm adapter plus 20mm N120 extension)

=> extremely smart & small setup UW (also for travelling), I cannot see a difference in IQ compared to Canon 8-15mm (my wife loves this setup and uses it all most on every dive for WA)

 

 

Wolfgang

Edited March 3 by Architeuthis

[turandot]

I think I'll stick with the fixed ports option with 8mm fisheye for WA and 60mm for macro and as a flexible option the 14-42EZ with wet lenses. The options you have proposed are very expensive for amateur photography that makes 1 or 2 diving trips a year.

 

I'm afraid that carrying all this in your hand luggage is going to be a lot hehe

 

Do you think it is possible to reuse my current Fisheye FIX UWL-28M52 lens with approximate FOV of 168 degree for the 14-42EZ?>>  https://www.gidivestore.com/intl/en/wide-angle-lenses-and-domes/fisheye-fix-uwl-28m52.html

Edited March 3 by turandot

[Chris Ross]

9 hours ago, turandot said:

I think I'll stick with the fixed ports option with 8mm fisheye for WA and 60mm for macro and as a flexible option the 14-42EZ with wet lenses. The options you have proposed are very expensive for amateur photography that makes 1 or 2 diving trips a year.

 

I'm afraid that carrying all this in your hand luggage is going to be a lot hehe

 

Do you think it is possible to reuse my current Fisheye FIX UWL-28M52 lens with approximate FOV of 168 degree for the 14-42EZ?>>  https://www.gidivestore.com/intl/en/wide-angle-lenses-and-domes/fisheye-fix-uwl-28m52.html

It can be done, I carry my Nauticam housing, Canon 8-15 and 60mm macro and their ports plus 2x Z240 in a backpack which with a laptop weight about 12kg.

 

I think the Fix lens is designed for smaller sensor cameras  this page says it doesn't work too well with an RX100 which is a smaller sensor than the OM-1.

 

https://reefphoto.com/products/fix_uwl-28_fisheye_wet_mount_conversion_lens_for_52mm_mounts?srsltid=AfmBOoos5YJ1iz_HTnEUiE0mhynbs_G9wYzLEJnAODAmpzJnhALX-FjE

 

If you go a wet lens you could look at the WWL-C with Panasonic 12-32 or a WWL-1B with the Oly/Pana 14-42.  Something cheaper maybe find an INON UWL-H100 secondhand or look at some the AOI wet lenses.  

 

The extension adapters, 140mm dome and Canon 8-15mm weigh about 3kg.  a WWL-1B about 1.3kg plus the flat port to go with it, probably 2kg with port and lens?.  The Tokina 10-17mm setup would be lighter and cheaper and you could use a 100mm or 4.33"dome to make things smaller and lighter.  I expect the tokina with the N120 4.33"dome would be about the same weight as a WWL-1B with lens and port.

[Chris Ross]

16 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

 

I am not sure that this is really "very expensive", but I did not count all the positions together for comparison. I, personally, think this is the optimum WA setup for MFT...

 

 

The think the different solutions would be:

 

#1.: 8mm MFT fisheye with small domeport plus another, additional, solution (e.g. rectilinear WA (8-25mm) with big domeport & extensions (e.g. Zen DP170), maybe better WWL-1B plus flatport/standardzoom).

=> A lot to carry around for travelling, also the second (WA) rig UW is big&heavy...

=> One has to decide before the dive whether to go "All In" (180° diagonal, 😃) or less wide...

 

#2.: Canon 8-15mm, 1x Metabones adapter with 140mm domeport (via N85/N120 34.7mm adapter plus 30mm N120 extension)

=> Probably everything many people, including me, ever want for UW WA

 

#3.: Tokina 10-17mm, 0.71x Metabones speedbooster, 100mm Zen domeport (via N85/N120 34.7mm adapter plus 20mm N120 extension)

=> extremely smart & small setup UW (also for travelling), I cannot see a difference in IQ compared to Canon 8-15mm (my wife loves this setup and uses it all most on every dive for WA)

 

 

Wolfgang

 

Hi Wolfgang, 

 

wondering if it would be possible to use the Tokina 10-17 in an all N85 setup?  the lens itself is 70 mm dia x 70mm long compared to a Olympus 12-40 which is 70 x 80mm long.  The 12-40 just fits through a Zen dome.  

 

If it fits through an N85 extension it should work with an appropriate extension and a Zen 100mm dome or an N85 4.33"dome.  The limiting factor is likely to be the diameter of a zoom gear to use on the housing zoom control and this is a problem due to the internals on the extension rings.  Seems like is an extension ring without the internal lock, same as the extension on the Zen 170mm would allow it to work.  I recall you mention having a local dealer who could make custom extensions for you? 

 

The lens is only 20mm longer than a Panasonic 8mm which uses a Zen 100mm dome with no extension.  So should need about 20mm plus the Metabones thickness of 24.75mm extension? 

[Architeuthis]

21 minutes ago, Chris Ross said:

 

Hi Wolfgang, 

 

wondering if it would be possible to use the Tokina 10-17 in an all N85 setup?  the lens itself is 70 mm dia x 70mm long compared to a Olympus 12-40 which is 70 x 80mm long.  The 12-40 just fits through a Zen dome.  

 

If it fits through an N85 extension it should work with an appropriate extension and a Zen 100mm dome or an N85 4.33"dome.  The limiting factor is likely to be the diameter of a zoom gear to use on the housing zoom control and this is a problem due to the internals on the extension rings.  Seems like is an extension ring without the internal lock, same as the extension on the Zen 170mm would allow it to work.  I recall you mention having a local dealer who could make custom extensions for you? 

 

The lens is only 20mm longer than a Panasonic 8mm which uses a Zen 100mm dome with no extension.  So should need about 20mm plus the Metabones thickness of 24.75mm extension? 

 

I did not try with the N85 version of the Zen DP100, since we have the N120 version, without extension, here. Possible that the N85 extension rings are to narrow for the zoomgear, as you figure out...

 

I have a 30mm N85 to N120 extension ring here (without locks) that has been made by my local dealer (https://www.unterwasserkamera.at/shop/catalog/en/). Lisi does not use it any more, as the Nauticam 34.7mm N85/N120 extension works very well instead of the custom made 30mm extension (I have put it into the classified section here, in case someone is interested...

When I look into the Nauticam catalogue, I cannot find the N85/N120 34.7mm extension any more. It seems they have discontinued it, this is a pitty if true...☹️

 

The dealer linked above should be able to produce also N85 extensions (without lock) at any length upon request and the costs are bearable (but I myself would go with the N120 version of the Zen DP100 and is it just to remain compatible with a later N120 system. Also the reselling value is higher, I think)...

 

I also have tested the N120/DP100 with the Canon 8-15mm. It works fine, I could not find a difference in IQ compared to the 140mm domeport, but one has to remove the sunshade from the lens in order to fit into the smaller port (maybe the assembly is more prone to flare then)...

[Chris Ross]

1 minute ago, Architeuthis said:

 

I did not try with the N85 version of the Zen DP100, since we have the N120 version, without extension, here. Possible that the N85 extension rings are to narrow for the zoomgear, as you figure out...

 

I have a 30mm N85 to N120 extension ring here (without locks) that has been made by my local dealer (https://www.unterwasserkamera.at/shop/catalog/en/). Lisi does not use it any more, as the Nauticam 34.7mm N85/N120 extension works very well instead of the custom made 30mm extension (I have put it into the classified section here, in case someone is interested...

When I look into the Nauticam catalogue, I cannot find the N85/N120 34.7mm extension any more. It seems they have discontinued it, this is a pitty if true...☹️

 

The dealer linked above should be able to produce also N85 extensions (without lock) at any length upon request and the costs are bearable (but I myself would go with the N120 version of the Zen DP100 and is it just to remain compatible with a later N120 system. Also the reselling value is higher, I think)...

 

I also have tested the N120/DP100 with the Canon 8-15mm. It works fine, I could not find a difference in IQ compared to the 140mm domeport, but one has to remove the sunshade from the lens in order to fit into the smaller port (maybe the assembly is more prone to flare then)...

Thanks Wolfgang, I'm, thinking the costs would be a bit lower if you could do it this way, a single extension and a 4" or 4.33" N85 dome you might already own and you would only need the lens and the extension ring and figure out a zoom ring.  The price of the Nauticam N85-N120 extensions is a bit crazy now - the 47mm N85-N120 is now $USD685 and the 41.7mm version $707 on the Nauticam website.

 

The total bill for an adapter (if you can get the 34.7mm version) ext ring, 140mm dome 8-15 lens (new),  Metabones and zoom gear would be $USD4737 with current prices.