WACP-1 VS Canon 8-15mm Fisheye

[brightnight]

I currently shoot with a 28-70mm/WACP-1 and I’m trying to weigh the pros/cons of getting a 8-15mm fisheye with a 1.4x teleconverter and using it with the 180mm dome I already have. As far as I have been able to tell, the 8-15mm doesn’t have any real benefits in terms of minimum focus distance or FOV which are two critical pieces for my style of shooting in rivers and streams. 

 

The only benefit seems to be the image style of fisheye which is nice but my understanding is that doesn’t happen at 15mm. If the lens was at 15mm all day I think I'd be better off shooting the WACP-1 as the image quality would be higher. The 8-15mm fisheye setup runs about $800-1000 if I use the 180mm dome I already have so if there isn’t a real benefit that I might just stick with the WACP-1. I don't love extreme distortion but I do like minimal effects of a fisheye has which emphasise the center of the image, so I'm guessing I'll be in the 11-15mm range most of the time.

 

What other factors should I consider and would you add a 8-15mm/1.4x teleconverter into the mix? 

 

Camera: Full frame DSLR (Canon 5D mark IV)

 

I made this chart comparing the two, if it is inaccurate please let me know:
null

[Dave_Hicks]

A fisheye lens still produces a Fisheye Effect at 15mm, with straight lines being curved. The 8-15mm party trick at 8mm is a circular vignette, and that's a whole other thing. 

 

I don't use the WACP, but the WWL-C with 24-50mm lens, and it's pretty much the same thing you get with the WACP. This configuration is very flexible and provides the ability to get sharp images at wide angles and some ability to zoom in to near-macro levels. Edge sharpness is good with these lenses, more so than older Wide Angle Zooms like a 16-35mm behind a big port.

 

I also shoot with the Nikon 8-15mm FE behind a 170mm dome port. To be certain, this is sharper than the WWL (and maybe the WACP). The Fisheye can be very pleasing with some scenes and the corner sharpness is excellent, It's smaller and lighter than the WACP by a mile, and a bit smaller than the WWL-C but not by much. However, it is a lot less flexible than the Nauticam ports with their big zoom ranges.

 

You use a Fisheye for situations that are going to benefit most. Big reef scenes, some very close up big animal encounters (Mantas, Whalesharks), kelp forests. You can get some nice CFWA opportunities when you run out of big scenery but have open water backgrounds and lots of light.

 

If you are adding a teleconverter to the FE, then you might as well go with the WACP/WWL most of the time. You are seeking more range and that is not what FE is made for.

 

Edited yesterday at 04:38 PM by Dave_Hicks

[ChipBPhoto]

I agree with all @Dave_Hicks shared.  I too have a WACP and Canon 8-15 behind a 140 dome.  I find the WACP is more versatile and my normal go-to for wide, CFWA, and general diving.  Its close focus capabilities can make even tiny subjects a possibility.  The WACP is also more capable at slightly wider apertures while still maintaining reasonably sharp corners.
 

The 8-15, with or without a TC really shines for ultra wide subjects such as large reefscapes, wrecks, CFWA, etc.  I find it to be sharper than the WACP overall, but it does require a smaller aperture for sharpness.  Softness at the edges is a possibility, but that really depends on your subject and how critical edge sharpness is in the image desired.  
 

In short they are different tools that have some areas of overlap, but they do excel in different areas.  It depends on your needs and budget to have both or not.

 

Hope this helps…

[Chris Ross]

13 hours ago, brightnight said:

I currently shoot with a 28-70mm/WACP-1 and I’m trying to weigh the pros/cons of getting a 8-15mm fisheye with a 1.4x teleconverter and using it with the 180mm dome I already have. As far as I have been able to tell, the 8-15mm doesn’t have any real benefits in terms of minimum focus distance or FOV which are two critical pieces for my style of shooting in rivers and streams. 

 

The only benefit seems to be the image style of fisheye which is nice but my understanding is that doesn’t happen at 15mm. If the lens was at 15mm all day I think I'd be better off shooting the WACP-1 as the image quality would be higher. The 8-15mm fisheye setup runs about $800-1000 if I use the 180mm dome I already have so if there isn’t a real benefit that I might just stick with the WACP-1. I don't love extreme distortion but I do like minimal effects of a fisheye has which emphasise the center of the image, so I'm guessing I'll be in the 11-15mm range most of the time.

 

What other factors should I consider and would you add a 8-15mm/1.4x teleconverter into the mix? 

 

Camera: Full frame DSLR (Canon 5D mark IV)

 

I made this chart comparing the two, if it is inaccurate please let me know:

 

I  find it generally better to compare horizontal fields as a lot of the stretching of the image in a fisheye is in the corners.  As to whether a fisheye will be a good option -, it really depends on what you are shooting.  I know Alex Mustard has chimed in a number of times with the view that just comparing fields doesn't give you the full story, it's the subject pop which brings it forward in the frame that is what you are after.  As you zoom in this impact slowly goes away and is quite mild at the equivalent of the the WACP at it's widest.  The WACP has similar distortion to a zoomed in fisheye.  This table shows the fields of view at the extremes of the the 8-15 with 1.4x and the WACP.

 

You can see this in zoom ratios.  The 28-70 is a 2.5x zoom but in the WACP the zoom ration is 3.1x.  Similarly the 8-15 is a 2x, but becomes 2.6x and this is at a reduced zoom range of 11-15 on the zoom ring.  as an aside using the full zoom range on micro43 gives a 4.3x zoom ratio.  This is due to  progressively cropping the stretched corners, these corners stretch more the further you go from centre.

 

 

You can see there is minimal overlap between the two in terms of horizontal field which is what sets what you can fit within the frame much of the time.  I've added rectilinear equivalent focal lengths as well - this is the rectilinear focal length with the same horizontal field. 

 

In terms of fisheye effect, if you are at 15mm whether it's just the lens or it's the lens plus 1.4x  (~11 on the zoom dial),  the fisheye effect is there. As you zoom in it reduces because you are progressively cropping out the stretched corners.

[Architeuthis]

The final IQ will depend on the combination of lenses and also TCs used (e.g. Nikon/Canon, Kenko DGX/HD/Sony, WACP-2/1/C; WWL-C)...

 

My personal experience (Sony A7R5; WACP-C; Sony 28-60mm; Kenko 1.4x DGX; Kenko 2x HD Pro; Sony 1.4x TC; Sony 2x TC) is that IQ is pretty similar between WACP-C/Sony 28-60mm and Canon 8-15mm/Sony 2x TC/140mm domeport (but not so when I use the 2x Kenko Pro HD or the Kenko 1.4x DGX (the Kenko 1.4x DGX is clearly worse in IQ compared to the Sony 2x TC)).

I find that both WACP-C and 8-15mm FE are very well able to do CFWA. I believe that the different AOVs, at comparable diagonal AOV, are similar, if not the same, between WACP and FE unlike the difference between FE and rectilinear...

 

=> In any case I would go for the Kenko 1.4x Pro HD TC that has clearly better IQ with Canon 8-15mm compared to the Kenko DGX version (there is somewhere a tread here with example photos made with this lens and both TCs)

 

The Canon 8-15mm/2xTC offers, for me personally, a much better diagonal AOV at the wide end (180°), compared to the 130° of the WACP, what I find often too narrow. At the narrow end the 8-15mm/2x is 85°, what I find more than plenty: when I was e.g. making photos of moderately shy sharks with WACP-C I finally dumped the photos made with the WACP-C/@60mm, since there was just too much water inbetween and the more seldom photos made at wider AOVs were, of course, much better...

 

My personal strategy is as follows:

#1.: When I am going for real WA, I take just the Canon 8-15mm/140mm domeport (shade removed) and can switch between 180° and occasional circular fisheye. Smallest rig and excellent IQ.

#2.: When I want also to zoom in (AOVs in the range of WACP), I mount the Sony 2x TC and an additional 20mm extension. IQ comparable to WACP but smaller rig.

 

For future travelling, I am already considering to leave the monstrous WACP-C at home (transporting WACP-C vs. Sony 2xTC plus 20mm N120 extension)...

 

Wolfgang

 

 

 

Edited 14 hours ago by Architeuthis