Marelux Wide Angle Port 180mm vs 230mm

[gozturkeri]

Hi folks,

 

I have a Sony a7rv with a Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DG DNII lens and am strongly considering buying into the Marelux ecosystem soon. I'm new to UW photography, so my understanding is still at a theoretical level; pardon me if the question is basic.

 

As I was reviewing the port chart on the Marelux website, I noticed that both the 180mm and 230mm ports fit my wide-angle lens. I get the size/weight dynamics here, and my initial reaction was to get the 230mm due to quality, but I wanted to see what the experience is in the community for these Marelux ports' performance with ultra-wide angle lenses. If 180mm performs well with minimal issues for sub-16mm, is it even worth hauling the 230mm? 

Thank you in advance!

[Chris Ross]

4 hours ago, gozturkeri said:

Hi folks,

 

I have a Sony a7rv with a Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DG DNII lens and am strongly considering buying into the Marelux ecosystem soon. I'm new to UW photography, so my understanding is still at a theoretical level; pardon me if the question is basic.

 

As I was reviewing the port chart on the Marelux website, I noticed that both the 180mm and 230mm ports fit my wide-angle lens. I get the size/weight dynamics here, and my initial reaction was to get the 230mm due to quality, but I wanted to see what the experience is in the community for these Marelux ports' performance with ultra-wide angle lenses. If 180mm performs well with minimal issues for sub-16mm, is it even worth hauling the 230mm? 

Thank you in advance!

Depends on the lens in question, I know the Nauticam 180mm dome has a max angle of view of a 16mm lens with exit pupil positioned properly as the dome is not a full hemisphere.  This means the exit pupil needs to sit forward of the optimum spot to avoid vignetting.  The marelux has a slightly bigger throat which helps with positioning but not sure if it can be placed 100% correct.    The Sigma lens you mention has a long minimum focus distance (28cm)  while some newer lenses focus a lot closer like the 17-28 f2.8 tamron which focuses down to 19cm.  This means it works well in smaller ports. 

 

There are lots of posts on the forum discussing that the new Sony wide zooms and the Tamron 17-28 among others will work well in a 180mm dome.  I'm sure some will chime in with direct experience.  I don't recall the Lens you currently have being among them.

 

You could buy the 17-28 tamron and the 180mm port for less than the price of the 230mm port alone and get a smaller lighter package that is easier to travel with.

 

Probably the more important question though is if a 14-17mm rectilinear wide lens is the right lens for what you want to shoot.  Fisheyes are very popular for reef scenics and wet optics with the WWL are popular for CFWA and make for a compact easy to shoot and flexible setup.

[hellhole]

dome port!!! the fav question on water pixel!!!

[Phil Rudin]

Both Nauticam and Marelux support the Sigma 14-24mm in the respective 180mm ports with the difference being extension lengths. I have a lot of experience with both systems and I can assure you that the 230mm will be the better choice in terms of corner sharpness. As Chris has pointed out minimum focus distance is critical and often trumps lens quality. So lenses like Tamron 17-28mm with MFD of 19cm is likely to outperform Sony 16-35mm F/4 PZ at 24cm in 180mm dome. The Rokinon AF 14mm F/2.8 with MFD of 20cm is every bit as capable as the Sony FE 14mm F/1.8 at 25cm.

 

Recently I have been using the Laowa 10mm F/2.8 with very close MFD of 12cm for super wide with the 230mm dome. This lens has the same 130 degree AOV as wet lenses like WACP1/2, WWL-1B & WWL-C without the fisheye distortion and with the ability to shoot very wide splits.