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?