I have just started using a Nauticam MFO-3 mounted with a flip adapter with a Nikon Z8 and Nikon Z 105mm f/2.8 VR S Macro Lens and found that it worked surprisingly well.

 

The best testament to just how well it performed was during two blackwater dives of West Palm Beach, FL. Blackwater photography, as some of you know can be in creditably challenging. For me, the greatest test came when we found a small paper nautilus on the second night. Although the little sucker never stop moving except to rest on one diver’s fingertip, I came away with more than a five dozen tack sharp images with just a handful of throwaways where the focus didn’t nail.

 

More I shoot with this lens, the more I like.

Those look pretty sharp to me!

I am using the MFO-3 with a Z8/105mm in an Aquatica housing on a flip holder. It works better than I thought it would. As others said, it is like having two very different lenses on the same dive. I sold my Nikon 60mm micro lens since the IQ of the 105 + MFO-3 is better, and it is more convenient.

I've now been using the MFO-3 with the Sony 100mm macro f2.8 GM on the A7SIII for video, and it works great.

I was warned that it could cause issues with the lens stabilisation when shooting video, so I turned OSS off on the 100mm and haven't seen any weirdness in the footage. Haven't tried it with OSS on, if anyone has a chance to do it without losing a dive, would love to know.

It's a fantastic tool, mainly because, as others have pointed out, Sony doesn't have a solid 50/60mm macro lens with workable AF.
It's also a great option for people like me who primarily shoot macro and supermacro with a default 90mm or 100mm lens, but occasionally want access to a more medium field of view, rather than use a wider lens and use diopters for occasional macro.

Combined with a snappy lens like the Sony 100mm, video AF works great, even on an ageing system like the A7SIII, and image quality is excellent (much better than I expected). I'm using it primarily in blackwater like situations (shore-based bonfire dives), and it's much more practical than the 100mm, basically the ideal baseline fov. Reduced minimum focus distance is also very nice!

The main downside so far is the overall length. The 100mm port + MFO-3 combination becomes something of a canon-like contraption...
That's probably less of an issue for stills with powerful strobe lighting, but for our weaker video lights it means longer, more outstretched arms to get the light where it's needed.
And this outstretched lighting position is an issue when a BW subject decides to come close to the glass, which is fine focus wise but requires serious light repositioning...

The other downside is protecting that large front element. The Nauticam rubber cap seems to have been designed to get lost underwater, and is just not practical as is. I have my MFO-3 mounted on a triple flip and currently keep a large neoprene pouch over it.
I think there have also been a few 3D-printed caps with lanyards floating around.

cheers

Edited August 3Aug 3 by bghazzal

3 hours ago, bghazzal said:

It's a fantastic tool, mainly because, as others have pointed out, Sony doesn't have a solid 50/60mm macro lens with workable AF.

Well it does. But depends a bit on the skill of the photographer I suppose.

But don't take my word - check out Alex Mustard's clip on "Curved Ports". He is quite a fan of the Sony 50 macro - especially behind a dome - as am I.

50 minutes ago, dentrock said:

Well it does. But depends a bit on the skill of the photographer I suppose.

But don't take my word - check out Alex Mustard's clip on "Curved Ports". He is quite a fan of the Sony 50 macro - especially behind a dome - as am I.

Do keep in mind that I only shoot video - AF on the 50mm AF might be workeable for stills, but not really for video, unless shooting manual on static subjects.
Video AF is a different beast altogether. Super slow AF aquisition is a no-go, even with backbutton focus for "manual AF", as you need it to snap back into focus as quickly as possible.

I use MFO-3 wit Sony 100mm GM on A7R5 (I am a little bit late to the party). It is a great extension of capability with o.k. IQ (MFO-3 sits an a single flip mount, can easily be switched in and out).

If someone is out for the ultimate IQ, the Sony 20-70mm f/4 G lens behind Zen 170 domeport is still better for intemediate focal length, but who, except puristic professionals who are out for just this single shot, would be willing to lug lens, extension and domeport arounf half of the world for this seldom used focal lengths?

Since I have MFO-3, the DP170-N120 stays at home. Sony 20-70mm f/4 and Tamron 50-300mm I take with me, but for over the water; I think I need soon a second body, A7R5 is sitting all the time in the Nauticam housing and over the water photography is rudimentary)...

Wolfgang

10 hours ago, bghazzal said:

The other downside is protecting that large front element. The Nauticam rubber cap seems to have been designed to get lost underwater, and is just not practical as is. I have my MFO-3 mounted on a triple flip and currently keep a large neoprene pouch over it.
I think there have also been a few 3D-printed caps with lanyards floating around.

I've only recently acquired the MFO-3 and haven't had a chance to try it out yet, but the unprotected front lens is a concern for me too.

If I remember correctly, @Dave_Hicks had a 3D-printed front lens protection for the predecessor, but I haven't seen anywhere whether it also fits the version 3.

If anyone sees an effective front lens protection online, please post it here!

1 hour ago, waso said:

I've only recently acquired the MFO-3 and haven't had a chance to try it out yet, but the unprotected front lens is a concern for me too.

If I remember correctly, @Dave_Hicks had a 3D-printed front lens protection for the predecessor, but I haven't seen anywhere whether it also fits the version 3.

If anyone sees an effective front lens protection online, please post it here!

I use the neoprene pouch it comes in to cover the MFO3 during shore dive entries and exits. I pull it off once I reach the bottom, clip it off then re-install on the safety stop. This is rocky entries from the shore with some swell on occasions, it has worked well so far.

2 hours ago, waso said:

I've only recently acquired the MFO-3 and haven't had a chance to try it out yet, but the unprotected front lens is a concern for me too.

If I remember correctly, @Dave_Hicks had a 3D-printed front lens protection for the predecessor, but I haven't seen anywhere whether it also fits the version 3.

If anyone sees an effective front lens protection online, please post it here!

If anyone wants to loan me an MFO-3 i will get right on it! I just made a similar protective Bumper for the BS OS-3 snoot. It really needed one as it is a big unit.

It would be interesting to have a flip open cover like on a rifle scope.

13 hours ago, Grantmac said:

It would be interesting to have a flip open cover like on a rifle scope.

Interesting idea! Although a bumper/cover tied off to the lens seems like it will work ok. I will need to mount/dismount on a bayonet unless/until I get a 90mm macro lens and port as the 60 mm is too short to use a flip.

On 5/9/2026 at 6:45 PM, Walt Stearns said:

I have just started using a Nauticam MFO-3 mounted with a flip adapter with a Nikon Z8 and Nikon Z 105mm f/2.8 VR S Macro Lens and found that it worked surprisingly well.

 

The best testament to just how well it performed was during two blackwater dives of West Palm Beach, FL. Blackwater photography, as some of you know can be in creditably challenging. For me, the greatest test came when we found a small paper nautilus on the second night. Although the little sucker never stop moving except to rest on one diver’s fingertip, I came away with more than a five dozen tack sharp images with just a handful of throwaways where the focus didn’t nail.

 

More I shoot with this lens, the more I like.

I am looking into this combo too, would you say it ”transforms” the 105 to a 60, roughly? Great idea with face of your buddy (?j in the background.

With the MFO-3, the field of view you see through your 100 or 105mm is altered to what you would see with a 50 to 60mm. In essence you have the best of both worlds for macro general macro work. Add a super macro diopter on a double flip holder, and there will be almost nothing you can't get.

I love the mfo-3 on my 105 or on the olympus 60mm. Nauticam makes and overpriced "M82 Filter Holder for MFO-3"

It allows the use of a lens cap and I use an 82 mm threaded lens hood on it at times. Of course, 3D printer experts like Dave Hicks could make something better.

16 hours ago, JohnD said:

I love the mfo-3 on my 105 or on the olympus 60mm. Nauticam makes and overpriced "M82 Filter Holder for MFO-3"

It allows the use of a lens cap and I use an 82 mm threaded lens hood on it at times. Of course, 3D printer experts like Dave Hicks could make something better.

Check this out "Lite" version of m82-holder-for-mfo-3 - Tutorials, How-Tos, DIY - WaterPixels
I am sure Dave Hicks can easily pull it off and add it to his collection - just ordered a few gears from him!

Been using my Sony A7C, 90mm/MFO-3 (on a flip) for a while now and it's now my go-to for most Puget Sound diving. This very small (<.24") slug larva was shot off Kona on Blackwater, but, it will also take a nice mid-wide shot like this medium-sized GPO taken from about 18" away (Octo has taken up residence in an old piling log). Overall, it's a pretty versatile diopter.

9 hours ago, Igor Ledo Lizarraga said:

Check this out "Lite" version of m82-holder-for-mfo-3 - Tutorials, How-Tos, DIY - WaterPixels
I am sure Dave Hicks can easily pull it off and add it to his collection - just ordered a few gears from him!

This seems like a bit of overkill to me unless you are paying $57.00US to actually use an 82mm filters like an ND or other. Just to add a cap to protect the glass can be done easily by adding a neoprene cover like a soda can cozy or like.

I sometimes put a ND on the front, so the threaded portion of the overpriced Nauticam piece is perfect for that.

Some underwater shooter friends pointed out to me that the Marelux MV60 has been released to the wild a few weeks ago and seems to be crushing the MFO-3 in terms of sharpness and AF improvement.

Anyone out there who had a chance to compare the two or owns both and can give a validated comparison / impression?

1 hour ago, Adventurer said:

Some underwater shooter friends pointed out to me that the Marelux MV60 has been released to the wild a few weeks ago and seems to be crushing the MFO-3 in terms of sharpness and AF improvement.

Anyone out there who had a chance to compare the two or owns both and can give a validated comparison / impression?

Interesting - I've heard that it was lighter, cheaper than the MFO3 and that it has a flat front element vs. a more concave one for the MFO3, but hadn't heard anything about sharpness or AF improvements of one over the other

7 hours ago, bghazzal said:

Interesting - I've heard that it was lighter, cheaper than the MFO3 and that it has a flat front element vs. a more concave one for the MFO3, but hadn't heard anything about sharpness or AF improvements of one over the other

I can answer some of these questions about the Marelux MV-60 V. Nauticam MFO-3.

Weight, NA is 602g and 120g negative in water. MX is 535g and 35g negative in water.

NA has a curved front glass and MX has flat front glass. The Marelux front lens appears slightly larger in diameter and because the front optic is flat it allows 77mm threads on the front of the lens so you can direct mount filters and a lens cap without need for an adapter.

Regarding cost the Nauticam MFO-3 retails for $730.00US and the M82 filter holder is $57.00. The Marelux MV-60 retails for $599.00. The MV-60 ships with a neoprene storage bag, front and rear caps and a spacer for direct mount to a 67mm flat macro port. I have never seen the MFO-3 but assume it includes the same items. Both work on flip adapters and can be interchanged between NA or MX adapters depending on which flip you own.

Regarding the IQ and AF performance I have no opinion because I have never used the MFO-3.

The second photo is the new Marelux housing for Sony A7R VI with the new MX double flip adapter. You can see it works with both MX-macroview and NA-closeup lenses.

9 hours ago, Adventurer said:

Some underwater shooter friends pointed out to me that the Marelux MV60 has been released to the wild a few weeks ago and seems to be crushing the MFO-3 in terms of sharpness and AF improvement.

Anyone out there who had a chance to compare the two or owns both and can give a validated comparison / impression?

I would also love to see some comparisons or tests. I am not saying that as some sort of challenge or dispute. I have found the MFO to be very useful, and if the MV60 does it better, even without being better to the point of "crushing" the MFO, I want one.

I would also be curious about working distance and magnification comparison, especially working distance. I just looked and cannot find those on the Marelux website.

Edited August 8Aug 8 by JohnD

33 minutes ago, JohnD said:

I would also be curious about working distance and magnification comparison, especially working distance. I just looked and cannot find those on the Marelux website.

Both the Nauticam and Marelux lenses have a 0.9X max magnification and on full frame are generally assumed to be suitable for 90mm, 100mm and 105mm macro lenses. So AOV's of 27 degrees, 24 degrees and 23 degrees. With the MFO-3 and MV-60 in place the result is an AOV of around 47 degrees+/-, 40 degrees and 38 degrees. Nauticam states it was tested with the Nikon Z 105mm macro and has a working distance of 0-1500mm or 59 inches. The Marelux MV-60 was tested using a 100mm macro so 24 degrees and 40 degrees with a working distance of 0-infinity, spec's from each websites.

I am sure many will say that shooting beyond 59 inches/1500mm is a waist of time however what shooting to infinity points out is the large difference in lens design between these two lenses. My guess is that having a flat front element allows the MV-60 to focus to infinity while the curved front element of the MFO-3 restricts working distance. This may also explain a difference in AF speed although this is purely speculative. Different camera systems have a wide verity of AF choices and to have a relevant comparison you would need to be using the same system with the same AF setting I would think.

33 minutes ago, JohnD said:

Thanks Phil, not surer how I missed the details on the Marelux page. I was mostly curious about minimum focus rather than maximum, and obviously cannot get much shorter than 0.

Hopefully someone can share some experiences with the lens.