One thing I meant to say yesterday was to always be careful when lenses end up very close to the glass - I’ve seen a few times problems when the housing compresses underwater (more port sections - more o-rings - more compression), the port then pushes the lens and camera back in the housing enough that the push buttons on the back of the housing start activating.

1 hour ago, Alex_Mustard said:

One thing I meant to say yesterday was to always be careful when lenses end up very close to the glass - I’ve seen a few times problems when the housing compresses underwater (more port sections - more o-rings - more compression), the port then pushes the lens and camera back in the housing enough that the push buttons on the back of the housing start activating.

Good advice, Alex. In fact, the shortest option is really tight (basically the space of a business card), so I’m a bit worried about it. Anyway, I also tried the 97mm + 20mm combo and it's fine — there’s no vignetting with the close-up lens (SMC-1) mounted on the flip. So this is probably the best option: fewer extension rings, less bulky setup... (until the proper port will be available)

I suppose I should chime in here. I've had several requests for 3D printed extensions, so I recently went ahead and designed/tested an N100 version. I made the prototype 17.4mm, as I believe that is the reported length difference between the Sony 90mm and 100mm lenses (if anyone knows for sure the ideal length for the extension for the 100mm, please let me know). It's simple to do other lengths as well (it might be tough to do shorter than 15-16mm with the current design, though). It has a bayonet but not a port lock, though that shouldn't be an issue if you use a vacuum system. I tested it to over 100m.

Obviously, a 3D printed plastic extension is not nearly as nice as an aluminum one from Nauticam, but I just thought I'd let people know about this option - especially for people wanting a non-standard length or to save a little money. I'm hesitant to mention price because I don't want to flaunt the forum's rules on self promotion/advertising, but I also know that's one of the first things anyone who's interested is going to want to know. So I'll just say that I'm thinking in the neighborhood of $100 plus shipping, but if the moderators want to remove that (or any of this), please feel free.

That looks really nice Isaac! Given what Nauticam is charging for extensions these days that is extremely reasonable.

Edited Tuesday at 05:44 AM2 days by Dave_Hicks

2 hours ago, Isaac Szabo said:

I suppose I should chime in here. I've had several requests for 3D printed extensions, so I recently went ahead and designed/tested an N100 version. I made the prototype 17.4mm, as I believe that is the reported length difference between the Sony 90mm and 100mm lenses (if anyone knows for sure the ideal length for the extension for the 100mm, please let me know). It's simple to do other lengths as well (it might be tough to do shorter than 15-16mm with the current design, though). It has a bayonet but not a port lock, though that shouldn't be an issue if you use a vacuum system. I tested it to over 100m.

Obviously, a 3D printed plastic extension is not nearly as nice as an aluminum one from Nauticam, but I just thought I'd let people know about this option - especially for people wanting a non-standard length or to save a little money. I'm hesitant to mention price because I don't want to flaunt the forum's rules on self promotion/advertising, but I also know that's one of the first things anyone who's interested is going to want to know. So I'll just say that I'm thinking in the neighborhood of $100 plus shipping, but if the moderators want to remove that (or any of this), please feel free.

Hi Isaac, really a nice try with 3D printing. Can you share more details about the material you were using, PETG or Nylon?

I'm in the market for a n85 16mm, I'm curious about material too.

@flowdesign Oh sorry, the material is PETG. I've been using 3D printed ports myself for 5-6 years and making them for other people for a few years.

For others wanting to experiment with this type of thing, I should note that FDM 3D prints are not typically watertight. Special settings are required in order to achieve this, and one should do proper vacuum and hydrostatic testing before using them in the real world.

@Grantmac Unfortunately, I don't have the N85 design, but I could potentially add it in the future if there's enough demand.

How did you seal the PETG?

I am experimenting with ABS sealed using Dichtol for floats at the moment.

2 hours ago, Grantmac said:

How did you seal the PETG?

I am experimenting with ABS sealed using Dichtol for floats at the moment.

Just through tons of experimentation with print settings in the slicer. I get solid/watertight parts straight off the printer. A couple of the key factors are extruding around 1.1-1.2x more filament than normal and adjusting seam and wall settings so there are no gaps. I'll caution that, while it can be figured out. it's not easy. And settings that work for one printer model do not simply transfer over to another printer model.

1 hour ago, Isaac Szabo said:

Just through tons of experimentation with print settings in the slicer. I get solid/watertight parts straight off the printer. A couple of the key factors are extruding around 1.1-1.2x more filament than normal and adjusting seam and wall settings so there are no gaps. I'll caution that, while it can be figured out. it's not easy. And settings that work for one printer model do not simply transfer over to another printer model.

With some helpful tips from Isaac I was able to successfully make some Port Floats for my n120 Nauticam macro ports. I used a Bambu P1s printer but with ABS instead of PETG. Using just 4 walls of .5mm thickness, .1mm layers, random & staggered seams, 1.1x flow rates, and 10c higher nozzle temps I was able to get parts that are water and pressure tight to at least 35 meters. (have not tested deeper yet and don't have a pressure pot) 5% infill just to support the roof. It gets 300g buoyancy from a 200g dry weight torus. No coatings or treatments necessary. Beyond some light sanding, I don't do anything after they come off the printer. I probably have about 50+ hours of diving on my most used port float with zero problems. I weigh it periodically to verify that it has not taken on any water.

Edited Tuesday at 11:49 PM1 day by Dave_Hicks

@Dave_Hicks Nice work! Awesome to hear that you were able to figure out settings that are working for your printer!

Nauticam has just updated its port chart for the new Sony 100mm Macro lens

I'm a little surprised by the magnification achieved with the SMCs compared to the 90mm lens.

I expected the magnification to be greater (as the 100mm has a magnification of 1.4), but according to their informations, the magnification is equivalent, or even lower than with the SMC2.

Has anyone been able to do any tests yet?

Thanks

5 hours ago, JB_Cazajous said:

Nauticam has just updated its port chart for the new Sony 100mm Macro lens

I'm a little surprised by the magnification achieved with the SMCs compared to the 90mm lens.

I expected the magnification to be greater (as the 100mm has a magnification of 1.4), but according to their informations, the magnification is equivalent, or even lower than with the SMC2.

Has anyone been able to do any tests yet?

Thanks

The magnification achieved by a diopter is related to the focal length of the macro lens used. With the same diopter a longer focal length lens will have greater magnification. The Sony 100mm has a longer focal length - at infinity focus, however internal focus macro lenses lose focal length as they focus closer and to get the 1.4x magnification the 100mm macro focuses significantly closer at max magnification. Working distance for the new lens is calculated at 92mm while the old 90mm macro had 129mm working distance. This is quite a reduction in working distance and probably indicates a significantly shorter focal length compared to the old lens when operating at minimum focus distance, so the diopter gives less magnification.

You will see the working distance for SMC-3 at max magnification has reduced from 22 to 17mm so there is no room to reduce working distance any further. Also see that the magnification for the MFO-1 has increased from1.2x to 1.5x on the new 100mm lens. I believe this data is from Nauticam doing tests on the lens with their recommended ports and diopters.

What caught my eye more, and most likely a typo i guess, is that they list both 1.4x and 2x to use 30mm extension.

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by Sokrates

On 10/25/2025 at 8:47 PM, Pietro said:

I also tried the 97mm + 20mm combo and it's fine — there’s no vignetting with the close-up lens (SMC-1) mounted on the flip

@Pietro This result is on air or UW? Asking this because I was just informed by Marelux that they are going to develop a new port for 100mm Macro, since they alreday tested with 15mm and 20mm extension ring. 15mm is too tight, 20mm will have vignetting with wet lens, I asked them about testing details but no reply yet. It'd be good if you can share more hands-on experience😆

5 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

The magnification achieved by a diopter is related to the focal length of the macro lens used. With the same diopter a longer focal length lens will have greater magnification. The Sony 100mm has a longer focal length - at infinity focus, however internal focus macro lenses lose focal length as they focus closer and to get the 1.4x magnification the 100mm macro focuses significantly closer at max magnification. Working distance for the new lens is calculated at 92mm while the old 90mm macro had 129mm working distance. This is quite a reduction in working distance and probably indicates a significantly shorter focal length compared to the old lens when operating at minimum focus distance, so the diopter gives less magnification.

You will see the working distance for SMC-3 at max magnification has reduced from 22 to 17mm so there is no room to reduce working distance any further. Also see that the magnification for the MFO-1 has increased from1.2x to 1.5x on the new 100mm lens. I believe this data is from Nauticam doing tests on the lens with their recommended ports and diopters.

When comparing the working distances between Sony 90mm and 100mm macro lenses it is required to compare working distances at comparable magnifications (e.g. 1:1) in order to compare the effect of close focussing on focal length.

As you write, the working distance of the 100mm lens is shorter compared to the 90mm lens, but this is at magnification 1.4:1 instead of 1:1. Only when the working distance of the 100mm lens at 1:1 is shorter compared to the 90mm lens, focal length of the 100mm lens is in fact smaller at 1:1 magnification...

It seems that in practice the way to increase magnification beyond 1.4x with the new macro lens is to use the TCs rather than diopters (Moreover, the working distances at high magnifications become sweet as sugar with TCs 😋)...

2 hours ago, Sokrates said:

What caught my eye more, and most likely a typo i guess, is that they list both 1.4x and 2x to use 30mm extension.

... or it is perhaps confirmation that extra 10mm in space between port glass and the lens won't matter (1.4x is 17.4mm while 2x is 27.2mm added length to the lens). Which means that using old port 105 with 30mm port extension might be feasible for new 100mm macro (?)