Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM

[JayceeB]

Hello Waterpixel Community,

 

I have a Spring trip planned to Anilao and Malapascua.  I shoot a Canon R5, and will take my RF100 for macro at Anilao, but Malapascua is a little more difficult to plan for given travel weight restrictions.  I have an 8-15mm fisheye, but think this might not have enough reach for the sharks, and I also don't want 50 divers in every frame 🙂. My 14-35mm with 230mm dome is just too big and heavy. 

 

I was looking at lens options and see that Canon makes an RF 35mm macro that will fit in my 140mm fisheye dome port.  Have any of you had experience with this lens underwater?  I was thinking it would work well for sharks, but also be nice for clownfish and some larger macro critters.

 

Any feedback on this lens, or other recommendations would be much appreciated.

 

Thank you.

[Chris Ross]

The min focus distance for this lens is 170mm, given its dimensions and the size 0f the 140mm dome at 0.5x it will be focusing right on the dome, so I expect that the maximum practical magnification might be around 0.3x , so filling the frame with a 120mm long subject on the horizontal axis of the sensor.  You could also consider a 1.4x to add to your 8-15 which would give you 21mm focal length, about the same field of view on the horizontal field as a 16mm rectilnear lens

[dentrock]

That's a lens I'd love to have for my Sony as a general / all purpose lens.

Normal focal length macros work fine behind the 140 dome (eg Sony 50 and Zeiss 50). Have also used Nikkor 60 in the distant past with a small dome.

 

Assuming you are talking Nauticam, the optical centre is about 6-7mm behind the 140 dome port face. You can estimate the EP for the lens (distance from lens mount flange to apparent location of diaphragm when viewed from the front), and having measured the distance from the lens flange to the housing port flange you can see what if any extension you will need. I don't know the Canon details, and I don't know if you need to use an adapter with your dome.

 

With Sony FF, a 25mm adapter and no other extension works well, given a lens flange to port flange distance of 26-27mm. EPs for the above lenses are approx 43 and 48mm respectively. Misalignment with this combo is -3 (too long) for the Sony and +2 (not long enough) for the Zeiss. But bear in mind EPs can move as you focus close.

 

Yours will be shorter I think. Macros / normal FOV lenses are pretty forgiving of inexact alignment.

 

You can also use a 35 with a flat port, but the central area of sharpness will be disappointingly small.

[JayceeB]

9 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

The min focus distance for this lens is 170mm, given its dimensions and the size 0f the 140mm dome at 0.5x it will be focusing right on the dome, so I expect that the maximum practical magnification might be around 0.3x , so filling the frame with a 120mm long subject on the horizontal axis of the sensor.  You could also consider a 1.4x to add to your 8-15 which would give you 21mm focal length, about the same field of view on the horizontal field as a 16mm rectilnear lens

Thank you, Chris.  I'll think more on the 1.4x.  I'm less concerned with the macro working distance than the performance on sharks in low ambient light.  I wonder if the 35mm focus hunts in those conditions.  I also had a thought that maybe I could run my 14-35 in the 140mm dome, but fix it at 35mm.  I'll have to compare the 2 lens dimensions. 

 

Anyone tried this in real life?

[JayceeB]

8 hours ago, dentrock said:

That's a lens I'd love to have for my Sony as a general / all purpose lens.

Normal focal length macros work fine behind the 140 dome (eg Sony 50 and Zeiss 50). Have also used Nikkor 60 in the distant past with a small dome.

 

Assuming you are talking Nauticam, the optical centre is about 6-7mm behind the 140 dome port face. You can estimate the EP for the lens (distance from lens mount flange to apparent location of diaphragm when viewed from the front), and having measured the distance from the lens flange to the housing port flange you can see what if any extension you will need. I don't know the Canon details, and I don't know if you need to use an adapter with your dome.

 

With Sony FF, a 25mm adapter and no other extension works well, given a lens flange to port flange distance of 26-27mm. EPs for the above lenses are approx 43 and 48mm respectively. Misalignment with this combo is -3 (too long) for the Sony and +2 (not long enough) for the Zeiss. But bear in mind EPs can move as you focus close.

 

Yours will be shorter I think. Macros / normal FOV lenses are pretty forgiving of inexact alignment.

 

You can also use a 35 with a flat port, but the central area of sharpness will be disappointingly small.

 

I'm running Marelux.  Their port chart says to use the 140mm dome with no extension. 

[dentrock]

Find a bricks and mortar camera store and try focusing inside in lowish light. I use AFC with tracking and medium spot. Don't know what Canon has to offer, but a modern lens and body should be fine.

 

Check the lens reviews!

 

With a dome, it's a good focal length for sharks up to about 2m in clear water, or close-ups of larger sharks.

 

If the sharks are blending into the background you may have to focus on an edge before recomposing.

[Chris Ross]

13 hours ago, JayceeB said:

Thank you, Chris.  I'll think more on the 1.4x.  I'm less concerned with the macro working distance than the performance on sharks in low ambient light.  I wonder if the 35mm focus hunts in those conditions.  I also had a thought that maybe I could run my 14-35 in the 140mm dome, but fix it at 35mm.  I'll have to compare the 2 lens dimensions. 

 

Anyone tried this in real life?

The 14-35 might be a better option, the lens achieves 0.38x magnification and the with 200mm MFD you get 80mm working distance.  I found a review by the digital picture and it said measured MFD was 184mm so that gets you to about 64mm working distance which is right on the dome for the 140mm.  So if it is placed correctly it should work as well as any other 35mm lens.

 

I suspect it might work OK behind the dome between maybe 30 and 35mm, especially considering you are likely to have blue water in the corners, so if you trust yourself not to zoom too far having a zoom gear might allow you to capture a shark that is bigger or approaches closer that you might otherwise not get.  The review also mentions 14-35 AF is extremely fast, while reviews of the 35mm f1.8 mention slowish AF and one mentions a bit of hunting.

 

Looking at the Marelux port chart the Canon 8-15 uses the same extension with the 140mm and 230mm domes - so the 14-35mm should also use the same extension for both the 140mm and 230mm domes.  So presumably you would have nothing to buy if you use the 14-35 with the 140mm, if you are already using it with the 230mm.

[RomiK]

Yep, real life sharks don't get that close... not like the tiger beach zoo types :-)... I wasn't to Malapasqua, I only saw vids that could get pretty dark... I was to Cocos, Socorro and Galapagos and at times it was dark there too so perhaps I could relate... I use Sony 16-35 F4 with 180mm glass dome on Nauticam and A1 and that offers quite good picture quality, certainly for video and shark photo wide open. APSC mode gets me to 55mm in video.  Or I would go WWL-1B route. But 180mm glass would be preferred because you don't have to clean bubbles after drop... I missed quite a few shots on Galapagos with WWL and next time I would take 180mm dome for sure.  

 

I took a lot of photos at 35mm end in Cocos and Socorro, they just don't come that close over there. Here is an original frame from the best picture I got on Cocos' Alcyon in 2023 (we got lucky and got clear water that day). The detail is 300% loupe...

 

Edited December 31, 2024 by RomiK

[JayceeB]

16 hours ago, RomiK said:

Yep, real life sharks don't get that close... not like the tiger beach zoo types :-).

So true.  I almost always shoot sharks at 35mm, and usually wished I had more zoom.

[JayceeB]

So I compared the EF 8-15mm fisheye to the RF 14-35mm, and they’re nearly the same length, so I thought I would try out the 14-35mm with the 140mm fisheye dome port.  I set my expectations extremely low, and was hoping it would give acceptable results at the 35mm end.  I tested it out on two dives today, and took mainly 35mm shots, but also tried some 14mm shots as well.  I was actually pleasantly surprised at how well it performed, at least to my eyes, but I’m not very picky on edge sharpness.  I’ve uploaded a few shots to show 35mm and 14mm  in case anyone is interested.

 

35mm first set.

[JayceeB]

14mm Second Set

null

[Chris Ross]

17 minutes ago, JayceeB said:

So I compared the EF 8-15mm fisheye to the RF 14-35mm, and they’re nearly the same length, so I thought I would try out the 14-35mm with the 140mm fisheye dome port.  I set my expectations extremely low, and was hoping it would give acceptable results at the 35mm end.  I tested it out on two dives today, and took mainly 35mm shots, but also tried some 14mm shots as well.  I was actually pleasantly surprised at how well it performed, at least to my eyes, but I’m not very picky on edge sharpness.  I’ve uploaded a few shots to show 35mm and 14mm  in case anyone is interested.

 

35mm first set.

Based on that test I'd say you have your solution and it doesn't involve buying anything new.  Corners look fine at 35mm, any unsharpness could just be depth of field.  14mm is of course pretty soft in the corners, but it doesn't sound like you'll need it at your destination.

[JayceeB]

44 minutes ago, Chris Ross said:

1 hour ago, JayceeB said:

 

Based on that test I'd say you have your solution and it doesn't involve buying anything new.  Corners look fine at 35mm, any unsharpness could just be depth of field.

Thanks for the feedback, Chris.  Yes, I think this will work just fine for my needs, where travel weight is a big stress factor.  Also, I don't remember the last time a solution presented itself with zero cost 🙂

[RomiK]

Just a food for thought... since we already spend big $$$ for liveaboards and related travel and these come and go. While investment into a good equipment is there to stay... Imagine diving this destination, all the effort and $$$ which lead to it, you get some great shots of sharks at 35mm and then , perhaps at the end of the dive, there is this fish bowl which screams 'take the picture!'... 180mm glass is like $1400 but that money is going to get used for other space limited travels down the road... and there really isn't substitution for an F4 ultra wide and 180mm combo and selected travel parameters ... just a thought...

 

This bowl is with WWL1 at the widest but 14-16mm would get you quite there. Taken at the end of the dive at Wolf with 35bars ... not much time to play with 🙈🙂