Z8 wide angle advice sort

[Mark H]

Hi All

As some will have read, I had a housing failure that killed my beloved D500 set up. As a result of good insurance I had money to burn and bought myself a Z8. I'm choosing to go with Nauticam this time as Sea&Sea don't have a housing at the moment (and the housing that failed on me was Sea&Sea). I've used Sea&Sea since 2007 but I know nothing of Nauticam and almost as little about Nikon Z full frame cameras.

I'm sorted on macro (that is easy - f mount 60mm and z mount 105mm).

What I can't work out is wide angle. There isn't anything that replaces my favorite Tokina fisheye and that won't auto focus on the Z8 (nor is it FF). I have a F mount 14-24 f2.8 that I use above water, and a Nikon 8-15mm which is also f mount. Both are very heavy lenses. I'm guessing that these would give me close to what I had and would need the 230mm glass dome (though there are lots and lots of dome options and I'm hedging at glass but as to size 180mm, 230mm and 250mm, I'm thinking the 180mm is too small and the 250mm is too heavy!)? I could buy the Z mount 24-50mm and put it behind a WWL-1B, WWL-C, WACP-1, WACP-1B, WACP-C but not the FCP-1 as I don't have the money nor want the weight of that. On cost the WACP-2 is also way too expensive and heavy. I will be taking this diving all around the world as well as the UK and weight is a major problem, isn't it?

 

Hoping for some advice before contacting vendors as I prefer to vaguely have an idea before being guided down an expensive route. I know good shops don't really do that but it makes me feel a bit better 😆.

 

I hope someone has already trod this path and can shed some light on the optimum route.
Cheers

Mark

[Dave_Hicks]

Get the WWL-C and 24-50z setup. Excellent and very versatile. You may also want the 8-15mm behind a dome. I use it with the Zen 180mm with a 20mm extension. Not sure what else you could need beyond that.

 

I also have a Kraken krl09 wet-wide lens for the 60mm on a flip, nice for some situations where you want true macro with a wide option. 

 

I designed a 3d printed zoom gear for the 24-50z. I am happy to send you one for shipping cost, and save you a couple hundred. DM me if interested.

[TimG]

Nauticam recommended the WWL-C and 24-50 kit lens for me to use with a Z6iii. I have no experience of the combination and my natural inclination was to go with the Nikkor 8-15. 

[Dave_Hicks]

29 minutes ago, TimG said:

Nauticam recommended the WWL-C and 24-50 kit lens for me to use with a Z6iii. I have no experience of the combination and my natural inclination was to go with the Nikkor 8-15. 

The WWL-C is far more versatile providing 130deg wide angle and near macro zoomed to 50mm. The quality is excellent and no different from the WACP. It is a wet lens, but I've not found bubbles to be an issue. It's easy to clear it if that is a concern. This is my go-to setup most of the time. 

 

I don't think it replaces a Fisheye, and I still have the 8-15mm. However, I only use that in very specific scenarios where an ultra-wide fields of view is beneficial.

 

Here are two shots from the same dive with the 24-50 & WWL-C at 24mm & 50mm.

 

 

 

Edited Thursday at 08:05 PM by Dave_Hicks

[Chris Ross]

Your wide angle choice depends on how wide you want to go and how much reach you need.  Here's fields of view of a few options compared to what you get from a Tokina 10-17.  I am comparing by horizontal field of view rather than diagonal as this generally sets what you can fit within a frame.  Fisheye corners stretch a lot more so than rectilinear of the WWL, but usually you don't have important subject matter there. 

 

Tokina 10-17 DX:   Fisheye  - 22.5mm rectilinear   144- 81° horizontal field

Full frame:

FCP with 24-50:    Fisheye - 23mm rectilinear   140-97°

WWL-C with 24-50:  14-43mm rectilinear    106 - 42°

8-15 plus 1.4x:   Fisheye- 16mm rectilinear   144-97°

 

The closet match to a Tokina 10-17 is the very pricey FCP.  You already have the 8-15 so adding a 1.4x to that with a Nauticam 140mm dome would be a good solution if you don't need the full reach of the 10-17.  I wouldn't consider the 14-28 for use in a dome, you need at least a 230mm and I recall seeing reports the 14-28 is not that great UW behind a dome.

[Dave_Hicks]

25 minutes ago, Chris Ross said:

 

Tokina 10-17 DX:   Fisheye  - 22.5mm rectilinear   144- 81° horizontal field

Full frame:

FCP with 24-50:    Fisheye - 23mm rectilinear   140-97°

WWL-C with 24-50:  14-43mm rectilinear    106 - 42°  130-72º

8-15 plus 1.4x:   Fisheye- 16mm rectilinear   144-97°

 

 

 

You have the wrong data for the WWL-C FOV. It's 130-72º per the port chart.

Edited Thursday at 11:10 PM by Dave_Hicks

[ChipBPhoto]

Hi @Mark H - congrats on your new rig!  I agree with the comments listed above.  The WWL is a terrific option for a blend of travel size and image quality.   It is on my rig about 90+% of the time.  One of the best features is it can focus at almost macro level of closeness to your subject.  (See Dave Hicks amazing nudibranch). I have basically gently placed the dome on a starfish leg and it nailed the focus!
 

As far as Nauticam in general, you will love it!  I’m on my 3rd Nauticam housing and have found them all to be extremely well made and quite durable.  Just remember to articulate the buttons/levers in fresh water after the dive to keep them working well.  Blow out the excess water after to keep them clean underneath.  Also, be sure to dry off the housing with a soft cloth to keep it from showing hazy water spots on the black body finish.  And of course use their grease for their gray o-rings.  The main body o-ring needs basically no grease as it doesn’t move.  I run it through my fingers after I’m done prepping the others to pick up just a hint of the residue. 
 

Enjoy!

 

Edited yesterday at 12:40 AM by ChipBPhoto

[Chris Ross]

8 hours ago, Dave_Hicks said:

 

You have the wrong data for the WWL-C FOV. It's 130-72º per the port chart.

No I have the correct data, I am quoting horizontal fields of view that I calculated, not diagonals as I stated in the text. 

 

I find this much better to compare what size objects you can frame with a given system The 130° of the WWL and the 180° of a fisheye is mostly stretching of the corners.  So a WWL has 130° diagonal field which seems like a 10mm rectilinear but the horizontal field is 106° which is closer to a 13-14mm rectilinear.  Likewise the fisheye lenses are nominally 180° diagonal, but the horizontal field is about 140-144° which is something like a 6mm rectilinear if such a lens existed.  

 

See for example these two images, taken on m43 - the first is the 8-15 fisheye at 15mm, the second is the 7-14mm at 14mm.  They basically frame the door the same way, the calculated fields on the long axis are 67 and 63°, while the diagonals are 88 and 78°.  Using diagonals you'd think the 8-15 at 15mm had quite a bit wider view, but based on the long axis field of view they are very similar, the fisheye just includes more in the corners. which for the most part are unimportant for an image.

 

 

 

 

[Dave_Hicks]

Madness. Get back to us when you have done these calculations underwater and revised the spec sheets for the entirety of the Nauticam port charts. 😲

[Chris Ross]

5 hours ago, Dave_Hicks said:

Madness. Get back to us when you have done these calculations underwater and revised the spec sheets for the entirety of the Nauticam port charts. 😲

Dave, I'd appreciate it if you could explain why it is an issue to compare lenses this way rather than just throwing insults.  The diagonal field of a lens is just a convenient way to compare with a single data point but doesn't give the full picture.

[Dave_Hicks]

1 minute ago, Chris Ross said:

Dave, I'd appreciate it if you could explain why it is an issue to compare lenses this way rather than just throwing insults.  The diagonal field of a lens is just a convenient way to compare with a single data point but doesn't give the full picture.

No insults intended at all, that was not my goal. You have my apologies.

 

I just don't understand the point of redefining the specified FOV. They are all relative I assume, so if you redefine one you need to do so with them all. What's the point of this recalculation?

[Chris Ross]

4 hours ago, Dave_Hicks said:

No insults intended at all, that was not my goal. You have my apologies.

 

I just don't understand the point of redefining the specified FOV. They are all relative I assume, so if you redefine one you need to do so with them all. What's the point of this recalculation?

Thanks Dave,  The point is it makes comparing the fields you get from various lenses easier, particularly if you are comparing a rectilinear to a fisheye where the focal length is not a good guide at all.    The purpose of providing a field of view is to help determine what sized objects you can fit within that field.  Generally what you can fit is defined by the width of the long axis - you don't frame subjects diagonally in general. 

 

The issue you have is that the the barrel distortion of the fisheye and WWL is not linear, the degrees of field covered per mm of sensor increases as you get further from the sensor - the corners are stretched.  This means that as you zoom in you get narrower fields than you might expect.  The example I provided above of an 8-15 lens on m43 , from looking at focal lengths it seems like it is a 2x zoom lens, but it's actually like a 6 -28mm lens or a 4x zoom and replaces a fisheye and a 7-14 rectilinear in horizontal field coverage.

 

 

Back to the original question, the 10-17 was very popular because it zoomed from a fisheye all the way to a 22mm rectilinear lens, about a 3.5x zoom ratio based on horizontal field.  The only full frame match for that lens currently is an FCP which is an expensive, heavy option.  The WWL-C has a similar 3x zoom range but shifted to the long end and missing the fisheye end.  AN 8-15 with an added 1.4x gives about a 2.5x zoom ratio but lacks the reach of the WWL-C and Tokina 10-17. 

 

The other factor with the fisheye is the barrel distortion which brings your subject forward in the frame - it appears bigger and fatter - so for reef scenics it's really unbeatable.  SO the choice to replace a Tokina 10-17 is if you mostly used the 10-14 range of that lens, an 8-15 with a 1.4x will replace that very well, but if you were mostly using the long end of the 10-17 the the WWL-C with 24-50 is potentially a better choice.  If you do both reef scenics and CFWA then you might want both.