Hi everyone,

just found this community as I'm in the process of buying my first UW setup. I've been a professional photographer for going on 20 years, but only just started out underwater, been using rented gear, Nauticam and Ikelite thus far. My work's mostly in commercial shoots, so I'll probably need some longer lenses and less fisheye/extreme wide angle than most people use around here.

I'll probably go with the Nauticam for my R5 II, as I have a tether solution available for it, but I'm split between the 180 and 230 mm dome. I like that the 180 can work more like a flat port with longer lenses, but the 230 offers more overall sharpness.

My ideal lens choices would be the (newish)RF 16-28 2.8 and 28-70 2.8, but obviously neither are in the port charts. Does anyone have experience 3D-printing the focus gears? Don't think the 15-35 L and 24-70 L are in my budget at the moment.

I'm also eyeing adapting to EF and getting the 16-35 L and 24-70 L, but the EF port chart only shows the 8.5 " acrylic port for the 24-70. Has anyone used it on the 180 mm port? Is there a reason why it wouldn't work? Definitely don't want acrylic, as my experience with Ikelite had it scratching just by looking at it funny.

Thanks so much for any help!

Edited June 18Jun 18 by Christoph

Hey Christoph

Given where you are coming from and the equipment you already have, I can totally understand your lens choices. Just a couple of things to bear in mind, Id suggest:

Unless you are using wet lens attachments, largely driven by Nauticam, the lens choices for u/w tend to be extreme: fisheyes (15mm for FF, 10-15mm with APS-C sensors), extreme wide-angle rectilinear; then macro - typically 105mm with an FF sensor. The reason being that you want to minimise the amount of water between the camera and the subject. This can be trickier with mid-range type zooms.

Forgive me if I'm reciting something of which you are fully aware, but I thought it worth a mention in terms of longer-term planning of lens choices and equipment.

Hi Tim,

I will admit that my choices are still pretty informed by my topside photography, so I appreciate your input.

I'm also considering the RF 15-35 2.8 L as my base lens and the 50 1.8 and 85 Macro to expand my range to a certain degree. I saw that I might need a diopter for the 50 on the 180 dome, does anyone if it works on the 230? Same for the 85, anyone has any data on it?

Edited June 18Jun 18 by Christoph

I would suggest that your first step would be to tell us more about what you want to shoot, UW photography is different in that the focal length is chosen so you can get closer to what you are shooting and you tend not to stand back with a longer lens. The aim is to minimise the amount of water between you and your subject as it degrades the image and if you are in a natural water body usually has all sorts of floating particles in it. Also helps with lighting as UW strobes have limited range as the water absorbs the red/orange quite quickly. Even if you are doing natural light, closer is better as the light has travelled less distance through water.

Another thing to consider is you don't need fast lenses generally, dome port optics means you need to stop down to bring the edges in, they are unsharp due to the optics and with rectilinear zooms you are looking at something like f11 at least if you want halfway decent corners. You can get away with less if there is no detail there of course. People use big domes as they perform better in the corners than smaller domes. Further complicating issues is that some lenses perform better UW than others, not just set by above water performance. In general terms a Wide angle zoom that focuses exceptionally close tends to do better and can be used in smaller domes. For example the Canon 14-30 focuses to 200mm, the 15-35 to 280mm and the little 15-30 STM to 130mm and some have stated the 15-30 performs best out of the 3 UW, particularly if you use a smaller dome.

The lenses that tend to work well UW tend to be the ones in the port charts - but ..... just because you see an entry in the port chart doesn't mean you'll necessarily be happy with the images produced. There's various threads on here you can search about these lenses and how they perform UW.

The short version is if it's not in the port chart you likely don't want to use it UW as it has issues either working behind a dome or maybe extending too much when zooming etc. Of course brand new lenses take some time to be tested and included.

If you feel you need the capability to shoot wider apertures to limit DOF, a dome and wide angle zoom is probably not your best option and you may be better served by a wet optic - the WWL or one of the WACP models these tend to work a lot better in the f4-f8 range. They have specific lenses that work well with them and some of them have limitations - you need to read the fine print. They tend to be more of the kit lens variety in many cases, for example the Canon 15-30 STM lens with the WACP. The WWL and WACP have a bit of barrel distortion that gets progressively less noticable as you zoom in.

The 50 f1.8 is rarely used UW and I would think you'd use it behind a flat port same as the 85mm macro lens, in fact I'd suggest make the 85mm do the work of both of these lenses. Shouldn't need a diopter with either in a flat port.

Please feel free to get back with any specific questions or clarifications.

Hi Chris,

thank you for the detailed write up.

I have my first bigger shoot coming up soon, that's why I decided it's time for my own setup.

It's a commercial project, the shots range from wider silhouettes of someone swimming in the water to people jumping into the water to closer shots of accessories they're wearing etc., all the while playing with distortion, shutter speeds, aperture, etc.
Edge sharpness isn't a huge concern, most of my UW photography will embrace a certain softness, but decent split shot ability makes me favor the 230 over the 180 dome.

I'll almost exclusively use natural light or the scenes will be lit externally, either inside or outside the water, done by the light crew.

The nicer, faster lenses also come from me wanting to have something I can comfortably use topside as well, my DSLR setup got stolen a few months ago and I've been renting until now, that's why I'm starting with a clean slate so to speak.

Additionally, I'd like to offer the option of shooting some UW video and I feel the 15-35 is a good starting point, before breaking into primes.

I'm now leaning towards the RF 15-35 2.8 L on the 230mm dome and 85 macro on the 60 flat port as a starting point for some pool trials next week, that'll still give me some time to react before the shoot in early July.

Both lenses are very usable topside for me as well and at least they're both in the port charts :)

A sensible choice or is there anything I'm definitely missing?

Again, thanks for everyone's help.

I case you go by car to the places where you make your UW photos, there is no argument against the 230mm dome. Even the Nauticam 250mm dome, which has a larger radius of curvature and is optimized for not-extreme rectilinear WA lenses (as you are planning to use), may be an option in case such a large dome does not interfere with making the photos (i.e. it is in the way)...

A 8.5" acryl dome, as you write, corresponds to 216 cm (what radius of curvature does the 8.5" dome have compared to the 180mm domeport (the 180mm port has a radius of 110mm)?). It is not granted that the lenses you write about, work well with the 180mm domeport (in case the radius of the 8.5" is similar to the 180mm domeport there should not be much difference): Best is to ask Nauticam US about it, usually they answer reliably and quickly ...

(Not every lens works well together with a domeport (highest optical quality is not an indicator). (i) the lens has to be able to focus at a close distance, since the domeport produces a virtual image that is few dm away from the domeport. (ii) this virtual image is curved and a lens that has field curvature that fits approximately the curvature of the virtual image works best with an, even smaller, domeport (field curvature is a property that is not really desired for high quality over the water lenses)

Wolfgang

Edited June 18Jun 18 by Architeuthis

Thank you for your thoughts, Wolfgang. The 15-35 on the 230 is Nauticam's recommended dome choice, so I'm hopeful for decent results.

Generally, I feel like the 230 is the way to go for me, as transportation isn't the biggest issue for now, I'm flying with a lot of kit for the shoots anyway, so while annoying, it's doable. Maybe I'll get a smaller dome for private travel once I've settled into my setup.

I'll be using an external screen, the Atomos Ninja in its Nauticam housing. With the big glass port and the added weight of the screen, does anyone have experience with buoyancy characteristics, still doable or should I look into floats already?

I'm probably looking at several hours in the water, with lots of waiting around.

5 hours ago, Christoph said:

Edge sharpness isn't a huge concern, most of my UW photography will embrace a certain softness

"Embrace [the] softness" . . . My new mantra. Thanks!

5 hours ago, Christoph said:

I'm now leaning towards the RF 15-35 2.8 L on the 230mm dome and 85 macro on the 60 flat port

You may be able to shoot the 85 macro in the 230mm dome too if you wanted to defer purchase of a dedicated flat port. Perhaps someone on this thread can comment.

10 hours ago, Christoph said:

Hi Chris,

thank you for the detailed write up.

I have my first bigger shoot coming up soon, that's why I decided it's time for my own setup.

It's a commercial project, the shots range from wider silhouettes of someone swimming in the water to people jumping into the water to closer shots of accessories they're wearing etc., all the while playing with distortion, shutter speeds, aperture, etc.
Edge sharpness isn't a huge concern, most of my UW photography will embrace a certain softness, but decent split shot ability makes me favor the 230 over the 180 dome.

I'll almost exclusively use natural light or the scenes will be lit externally, either inside or outside the water, done by the light crew.

The nicer, faster lenses also come from me wanting to have something I can comfortably use topside as well, my DSLR setup got stolen a few months ago and I've been renting until now, that's why I'm starting with a clean slate so to speak.

Additionally, I'd like to offer the option of shooting some UW video and I feel the 15-35 is a good starting point, before breaking into primes.

I'm now leaning towards the RF 15-35 2.8 L on the 230mm dome and 85 macro on the 60 flat port as a starting point for some pool trials next week, that'll still give me some time to react before the shoot in early July.

Both lenses are very usable topside for me as well and at least they're both in the port charts :)

A sensible choice or is there anything I'm definitely missing?

Again, thanks for everyone's help.

Christoph: I think shooting existing light with the 14-35 sounds fine for human subjects in pristine water. If you do end up photographing reef scenes and larger subjects, fisheyes and super wides are the way to go. And if you end up doing portraits of small fish and macro subjects, you won’t go wrong with a proper macro like the RF 100. I was a topside photographer more than 40 years ago with Canon FD equipment (Nikon was king then), and what I’ve found is start with what you’re comfortable with, and then go much, much wider. My favorite 24mm is a telephoto underwater!

12 hours ago, Christoph said:

Hi Chris,

thank you for the detailed write up.

I have my first bigger shoot coming up soon, that's why I decided it's time for my own setup.

It's a commercial project, the shots range from wider silhouettes of someone swimming in the water to people jumping into the water to closer shots of accessories they're wearing etc., all the while playing with distortion, shutter speeds, aperture, etc.
Edge sharpness isn't a huge concern, most of my UW photography will embrace a certain softness, but decent split shot ability makes me favor the 230 over the 180 dome.

I'll almost exclusively use natural light or the scenes will be lit externally, either inside or outside the water, done by the light crew.

The nicer, faster lenses also come from me wanting to have something I can comfortably use topside as well, my DSLR setup got stolen a few months ago and I've been renting until now, that's why I'm starting with a clean slate so to speak.

Additionally, I'd like to offer the option of shooting some UW video and I feel the 15-35 is a good starting point, before breaking into primes.

I'm now leaning towards the RF 15-35 2.8 L on the 230mm dome and 85 macro on the 60 flat port as a starting point for some pool trials next week, that'll still give me some time to react before the shoot in early July.

Both lenses are very usable topside for me as well and at least they're both in the port charts :)

A sensible choice or is there anything I'm definitely missing?

Again, thanks for everyone's help.

It sounds like you have used a bit of UW rented gear? What did you use then and how did it go? From what I recall reading on site here the 14-35 performs better UW mainly due to the closer focus distance. I think I recall some test shots being published . I would suggest you seriously look at the wet lens options if you want to shoot wide apertures UW, the unsharp portion can be significant if you go to particularly wide apertures. They have some barrel distortion , but you just need to watch for straight lines close to the edge of frame and becomes progressively less noticeable as you zoom in. I agree the 230mm will be better for splits.

Regarding your buoyancy question, the standard method is to weigh the rig from a luggage scale with it submerged in a tub, then get enough floats to counteract this. For stills around 100gr +/- negative is a good start. For video getting it near neutral and trimmed is more important. Domes tend to want to twist upwards because they are full of air, the glass in the dome helps relative to an acrylic dome but with video the constant upward twisting torque makes it more difficult to hold steady and tensing your arms to do so can cause issues. Perhaps make another post asking about buoyancy and trim with a 230mm dome and a monitor. It will be more comfortable to use if closer to neutral and trimmed. Also note that switching to flat port will change it all.

On 6/18/2025 at 7:49 AM, Christoph said:

'll be using an external screen, the Atomos Ninja in its Nauticam housing. With the big glass port and the added weight of the screen, does anyone have experience with buoyancy characteristics, still doable or should I look into floats already?

I use the 14-35 w 230 dome and a Ninja in a housing (Marelux but will be not that different). My rig is neutral with 2 -12" and 1.25 diameter float arms and a 8" 1.25" dia float arm, when using 2 keldan lights. So yours would be a bit less than that and won't have lighting. I run the 12" floats out horizontally and the 8" on a triple clamp with the other parts attaching to the top of the housing and the monitor so I can trim the camera side to side or forward and back. If I was shooting for hours in a pool, I would not want to be fighting with a negatively boyant camera. If shooting stills, I wouldn't be using the monitor either though - especially for split shots. I only use the Ninja on video dives as you can't get rid of the overlay while the Ninja is in the housing (no way to just touch the screen away from the bottom of the ninja where most of the settings are).

Just thought I would share my boyancy setup. With the big dome and a few extra mm of length if you go for the 15-35L you should not be super heavy in the water - but it will still be pretty negative. I also have a 15-30 that I keep in my bag as a backup, cheap as a backup and known to work better behind the dome than some nicer lenses (including the 14-35 that I shoot with). The 24mm macro behind either the 180 or 230 dome is joyful to shoot with and may be another good option for you (instead of the nifty 50).

UW photography is the opposite of land in many ways, the object is the get as close as possible to the subject to avoid the light falloff and particles in seawater. As others have said the 230 allows you to use fisheye or wide zoom (with an extension.) The 130 only works with fisheye, and is optically not as good as the 230 unless stopped down to f13 or higher. Alex Mustard’s UW Photography Masterclass is a must read IMO.