Been trying to digest the information available on the internet about the Nauticam WACP-C and WWL-1B for the Sony system.

I currently shoot with a Szabo converted Nikonos RS13 fisheye which absolutely blows my mind in regards to it's performance, but I'm hoping to pair it with something not quite as wide that can zoom underwater to allow for a different perspective.

Heading to Niue next year for some whale swims and looking for an option which allows tighter shots of the whales with a more rectilinear look to them.

My options seem to be:

• Sony 16-35mm f/2.8 GM ii (which I already own) behind a glass dome

• Nauticam WACP-C paired with the 28-60mm

• Nauticam WWL-1B paired with the 28-60mm

My biggest concerns about them are:

• 16-35 behind dome: Soft corners.

• WACP-C: flares badly when shooting into the sun.

• WWL-1B: needs burping upon entry to water, which for live drops with some megafauna means missing the shot.

Has anyone got any thoughts on these options? If they were to be ranked based on sharpness, zoom range and overall image quality, which one wins ?

I know that my best bet would be the WACP1, but it's just too big to travel with all of my other above water photo gear unfortunately, so I'm leaving it out of the conversation at the moment.

I have the WWL-C (pretty much the same as the B) and while i do usually burp it I sometimes forget to. I have never noticed any defects in the photos from bubbles. They are there floating at the top but don't seem to be in the frame at all.

I dove it yesterday and forgot to burp. No bubbles here:

Great to know !

I do wonder if that would be a different story when freediving however?

Perhaps on scuba it's not a problem as the depth compresses the bubbles and/or gives them time to release themselves?

Have you tried this setup whilst snorkeling/freediving on the surface ?

Mine doesn't need a burp screwed directly to the port (WWL-1). I don't think the bayonet mount is particularly water tight.

Your other option for whale swims, assuming you are on Sony is an adapted Canon 8-15 with a Sony 2x, reported to be as good as the WACP-C and Sony 28-60. Configuration is Camera - Sony 2x - Metabones adapter (V5 or newer in think) then the 8-15. It works very well in a 140mm dome. You get a fisheye able to zoom into the equivalent of a 28mm lens. The barrel distortion lessens as you zoom in to be similar to what you get from a WWL/WACP setup. The advantage is the small dome, disadvantage, depending on housing fairly negative in bouyancy. it doesnt have quite as much reach but it's close to the other options.

If you fancy using the 16-35mm that you already own, then the last thing you need to be concerned about in this particular scenario is soft corners - you'll be shooting open sea blue backgrounds with no corner detail.

I have a WWL-1b and last year did a dolphin snorkelling trip - in and out of small boats quickly, no time to burp and never had a problem

I'd certainly have the opposite opinion to Chris though, I can't see a 2x converter behind a zoom lens and a port matching the IQ of a wet lens

Mike

1 hour ago, Pooley said:

I'd certainly have the opposite opinion to Chris though, I can't see a 2x converter behind a zoom lens and a port matching the IQ of a wet lens

Mike

I'm only quoting people who have used both this setup and the WACP-C. They have switched over to mostly using the fisheye zoom. The thing is that the Sony 28-60 is an OK lens while the Canon 8-15 is an exceptionally sharp lens that behaves well behind domes. Here is a link:

and again in this post:

To my personal and subjective experience (no tests with test charts), Canon 8-15mm with Sony 2x TC is a bit soft, but WACP-C/28-60mm is not better...

I cannot tell about the Sony 16-35mm GM II, but I have Tamron 17-28mm and use it behind Zen DP-170. Compared to WACP-C/28-60mm (and also Canon 8-15mm/Sony 2x TC)) this combination is clearly the sharpest (in the center). The Sony lens is certainly optically better than the Tamron per se, but UW it depends how good it works together with a domeport and which size is required..

Wolfgang

P.S.: See also the shark photo of Fabian from August 10th (who was the first to use Canon 8-15mm with Sony 2x TC here) as an example for Canon 8-15mm&2x TC: https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/2735-bluesharks-manual-or-s-priority/#comment-18172

Edited September 15, 2025Sep 15 by Architeuthis

Get WACP-C and don't look back. From some reason WWL-1B is a bit soft at the long and while WACP-C is razor sharp. Plus not dealing with bubbles especially when you do freediving is an enormous plus. I lost so many opportunities at Galapagos with sharks present at the drop but I had to burp lens first... I would dismiss adapted 8-15 for your application. You need perfect AF.

These pictures are with WACP-C and at 60mm from Indonesia this summer. I got better quality and clarity from WACP than from 90mm (!!). It is one image - the whole frame and the crop. You can't believe this unless you see it!!!

Thanks for everyone's input on the topic !

It seems like perhaps the WACP-C is going to be the most versatile of the options when considering:

Size (ease of travel)

Zoom (versatility)

Cost (doesn't break the bank)

Image quality (acceptable sharpness)

Hi, I have the Sony 16-35mm 2.8 GM version 1 lens on a Sony A7RV, in a Nauticam housing with a 180mm glass dome. I’ve always found my corners to be soft with this setup and typically crop out the edges by default.

I’m on a trip to Malapascua in May and trying to convince myself the WWL-1B will not only be an easier rig to travel with, but will also be a measurable improvement with a wider POV and sharper corners.

Has anyone tried both of these options and if so, have a view on one versus the other? Is the 16-35mm GM version 2 likely to be an improvement on the first version? I’m a land based photographer as well and this is one of my go-to lens.

Thanks in advance.

Paul

Edited January 27Jan 27 by crowie

3 hours ago, crowie said:

Hi, I have the 16-35mm 2.8 GM version 1 lens on a Sony A7RV, in a Nauticam housing with a 180mm glass dome. I’ve always found my corners to be soft with this setup and typically crop out the edges by default.

I’m on a trip to Malapascua in May and trying to convince myself the WWL-1B will not only be an easier rig to travel with, but will also be a measurable improvement with a wider pov and sharper corners.

Has anyone tried both of these options and if so, have a view on one versus the other? Is the 16-35mm GM version 2 likely to be an improvement on the first version? I’m a land based photographer as well and this is one of my go-to lens.

Thanks in advance.

Paul

I do not have experinece with the 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, but with different similar lenses, both on MFT and FF. I can compare to WACP-C and/or fisheye behind small, hemispherical domeport (I think the essence is similar):

The corners are better with wetoptics or fisheye. In addition, rectilinear lenses, espcially at very wide angles of view, produce an unnatural stretching in the periphery (I find this a more serious problem than the corner sharpness; it seems I am not the only one here)...

Here a link to the comparison of WWL-1/WACP-C with rectilinear optics in the old forum: https://wetpixel.com/articles/review-nauticam-wide-angle-corrector-port/P2

Wolfgang

Edited January 27Jan 27 by Architeuthis

59 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

Thanks Wolfgang, that’s very helpful.

59 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

I do not have experinece with the 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, but with different similar lenses, both on MFT and FF. I can compare to WACP-C and/or fisheye behind small, hemispherical domeport (I think the essence is similar):

The corners are better with wetoptics or fisheye. In addition, rectilinear lenses, espcially at very wide angles of view, produce an unnatural stretching in the periphery (I find this a more serious problem than the corner sharpness; it seems I am not the only one here)...

Here a link to the comparison of WWL-1/WACP-C with rectilinear optics in the old forum: https://wetpixel.com/articles/review-nauticam-wide-angle-corrector-port/P2

Wolfgang

1 hour ago, Architeuthis said:

I do not have experinece with the 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, but with different similar lenses, both on MFT and FF. I can compare to WACP-C and/or fisheye behind small, hemispherical domeport (I think the essence is similar):

The corners are better with wetoptics or fisheye. In addition, rectilinear lenses, espcially at very wide angles of view, produce an unnatural stretching in the periphery (I find this a more serious problem than the corner sharpness; it seems I am not the only one here)...

Here a link to the comparison of WWL-1/WACP-C with rectilinear optics in the old forum: https://wetpixel.com/articles/review-nauticam-wide-angle-corrector-port/P2

Wolfgang

I would also add that in terms of field of view if you look at horizontal field of view - which to me dictates how large an object you can frame, then the WWL and WACP have a field of view of about a 13-14mm rectilinear lens. In a lens with barrel distortion the image is stretched more the further you are away from the centre so the diagonal field is that of a 10mm rectilnear, but you usually don't frame a scene from corner to corner.

The horizontal field of a 16mm is about 96 deg, a 14mm is around 104 while a WWL wlll get about 106 deg. A fisheye will get around 144 deg, but may struggle with reach for sharks.

Many thanks Chris

On 9/16/2025 at 12:12 PM, Hunting for Paradise said:

Thanks for everyone's input on the topic !

It seems like perhaps the WACP-C is going to be the most versatile of the options when considering:

Size (ease of travel)

Zoom (versatility)

Cost (doesn't break the bank)

Image quality (acceptable sharpness)

Hey man, I was wondering what you ended up choosing and how it performed for you with the whales. I also have the Sony 16–25mm f/2.8 G II and I'm heading to French Polynesia this summer. I'm torn between bringing the WACP-C or getting the 230mm dome port. I'd love to hear what you went with and whether you were happy with the results.

Not sure if your interest in the (presumably Nauticam) 230 dome was for the 16-25, but I found that lens works well even with the small 140 dome (radius 70mm), and not much further improvement with the 180 dome (radius 110mm).

I used 25 adapter + 35 ext with the 140. Central area of sharpness when viewed at 100% was between 24 and 36mm diameter at f11.

So if you are OK with f11 and this FOV range, it's a good compact rig.

The Nauticam zoom ring for the 24-50 fits this lens, since they are made as a complementary pair.

I'm not aware of a version "II" for this lens, so if it exists, disregard this post.

I usually will burp my WWL. It is bayonet and floods quickly and does not retain a large bubble. But jumping in hurriedly, I usually will find a myriad of tiny bubbles on the glass dome, rear element and port. I have found that if in a hurry swishing the camera about a little and fanning water to the dome and bayonet area will clear most of them rapidly without burping.

I am pretty fast at burping the lens, maybe ten seconds but a lot can happen in ten seconds I suppose. Yes, that can be a disadvantage to a water contact optic.

4 hours ago, Nemrod said:

I usually will burp my WWL. It is bayonet and floods quickly and does not retain a large bubble. But jumping in hurriedly, I usually will find a myriad of tiny bubbles on the glass dome, rear element and port. I have found that if in a hurry swishing the camera about a little and fanning water to the dome and bayonet area will clear most of them rapidly without burping.

I am pretty fast at burping the lens, maybe ten seconds but a lot can happen in ten seconds I suppose. Yes, that can be a disadvantage to a water contact optic.

Exactly what @Nemrod said, and this is the main reason I invested in the WACP-C. The dry port eliminates the chance of any tiny bubbles between the port and WWL, especially in a rapid entry situation.

I also have the 140 dome I use for a variety of lens. For me personally, I prefer the extra zoom range the Sony 28-60 with the sharpness and more open aperture options the WACP-C or WWL provides.

47 minutes ago, ChipBPhoto said:

Exactly what @Nemrod said, and this is the main reason I invested in the WACP-C. The dry port eliminates the chance of any tiny bubbles between the port and WWL, especially in a rapid entry situation.

I also have the 140 dome I use for a variety of lens. For me personally, I prefer the extra zoom range the Sony 28-60 with the sharpness and more open aperture options the WACP-C or WWL provides.

+1. Too many missed pictures in galapagos right after the drop where I had to remove - clean - put on wwl1... Plus WACP-C is soooo much sharper on long end than WWL... I think where WWL makes sense is video for wide/portrait shots. For photo I havent had much luck with CMC on that 28-60 flat port so I wouldnt say wide/macro would make much sense to justify wwl1.

12 hours ago, dentrock said:

Not sure if your interest in the (presumably Nauticam) 230 dome was for the 16-25, but I found that lens works well even with the small 140 dome (radius 70mm), and not much further improvement with the 180 dome (radius 110mm).

I used 25 adapter + 35 ext with the 140. Central area of sharpness when viewed at 100% was between 24 and 36mm diameter at f11.

So if you are OK with f11 and this FOV range, it's a good compact rig.

The Nauticam zoom ring for the 24-50 fits this lens, since they are made as a complementary pair.

I'm not aware of a version "II" for this lens, so if it exists, disregard this post.

Thanks for your response!

Yes, the 16-35mm f/2.8 II is the lens I'm talking about.

I saw that Nauticam recommends the 230mm dome for it, but that's quite a serious investment. That's actually why I started looking into the WACP-C as an alternative.

Ideally, I'd like to keep the setup relatively compact and not spend a fortune. I usually shoot around f/8-f/9 and don't mind going to f/11 if needed. I've been using the acrylic Ikelite dome port so far, so I'm not really spoiled by high-end glass domes.

Curious to hear what your experience has been and whether you've had good results with a smaller dome on this lens.

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by AlexUW26

6 hours ago, ChipBPhoto said:

Exactly what @Nemrod said, and this is the main reason I invested in the WACP-C. The dry port eliminates the chance of any tiny bubbles between the port and WWL, especially in a rapid entry situation.

I also have the 140 dome I use for a variety of lens. For me personally, I prefer the extra zoom range the Sony 28-60 with the sharpness and more open aperture options the WACP-C or WWL provides.

What about your experience with flaring? Is it something you run into often, or is it generally manageable?

For example, how does it perform when shooting whales or other large animals close to the surface with the sun in the frame or just outside it? Would you recommend the WACP-C or a dome setup in that situation?

I have never owned or used a glass dome with a WA or FE lens. However, I have a 4.33 acrylic dome and a fisheye and I find the WWL much sharper corner to corner and much less prone to flare shooting into the sun and general internal reflections.

I too am curious as to why the various flavors of the WACP would be prone to flare? Such would certainly be a part of my "dream" system, I thought.

Flare can be artistic but it can also be quite annoying.

5 hours ago, RomiK said:

+1. Too many missed pictures in galapagos right after the drop where I had to remove - clean - put on wwl1... Plus WACP-C is soooo much sharper on long end than WWL... I think where WWL makes sense is video for wide/portrait shots. For photo I havent had much luck with CMC on that 28-60 flat port so I wouldnt say wide/macro would make much sense to justify wwl1.

How have you found flare with the WACP-C? Is it generally manageable when shooting whales or other large animals near the surface with the sun nearby?

And in what situations would you choose a dome over the WACP-C, or the WACP-C over a dome?

23 minutes ago, Nemrod said:

I have never owned or used a glass dome with a WA or FE lens. However, I have a 4.33 acrylic dome and a fisheye and I find the WWL much sharper corner to corner and much less prone to flare shooting into the sun and general internal reflections.

I too am curious as to why the various flavors of the WACP would be prone to flare? Such would certainly be a part of my "dream" system, I thought.

Flare can be artistic but it can also be quite annoying.

With my Ikelite large dome, the reflections were quite bad. Even if I covered the text on the lens, I would still get noticeable flare when shooting towards the sun. If the WWL handles flare well, though, wouldn't the WACP-C perform similarly? Or are there some optical differences between them that affect flare resistance? I was under the impression that their image quality was very comparable.