6 hours ago, AlexUW26 said:

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.

Yes, same thought here. I was of the thinking that the WACP would be at least as good as the WWL and IMO the WWL is not prone especially to flare. Flare has not been a problem for me in thousands of shots and I love to shoot back against the sun for CFWA and other WA shots. This photo, divers and boat, is fairly horrid, I missed the moment but it demonstrates that the WWL does not flare. In fact, I cannot recall ever seeing flare though I am sure it can occur, any lens can flare into the sun.

The fish ball photo shows flare, Canon S90, Inon UFL165AD (acrylic dome), a lens that is prone to flare if not careful, I have never had the WWL ever do anything like this under much worse conditions.

Edited 13 hours ago13 hr by Nemrod

9 hours ago, AlexUW26 said:

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?

Hey @AlexUW26 - great questions. Everything has a trade off.

Have I experienced flare when aiming at certain angles pointing up towards the sun?

On occasion, yes. And with the WWL as well.

Is it frequent or did it impact my overall photo session?

Not in the least.

It’s something you can easily see when making the image, and equally easily slightly modify the angle to eliminate the momentary flare. It actually has nothing to do with depth as I have encountered it at 100’. Its simply the light coming in.

As an added bonus, it is incredible if you like CFWA images. It can focus at near macro closeness making it an all around solution.

As I said, everything has a trade off. The smaller size, sharpness, and versatility easily offset the minor quirk. I have other lenses and domes I use for specific needs, but for a great all around solution I personally feel it’s a winner.

Hope this helps!

Chip

Edited 11 hours ago11 hr by ChipBPhoto

9 hours ago, AlexUW26 said:

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.

I believe you are talking about different lenses. @dentrock is talking about the Sony 16-25, you are talking about the 16-35 II.

I think the issue with the 230mm dome is living with it for travel, the size and weight when diving with it, including the drag when trying to swim with it.This is as much or more of a concern than the expense.

On 6/11/2026 at 1:12 PM, AlexUW26 said:

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.

With whales you are jumping off a boat and swimming around trying to get in position - a 230mm dome is not going to make that easy.

you are also asking about flare, and mentioned problems with your ikelite port with reflections - these are different issues and causes. Acrylic ports are known to cause reflection issues and glass domes are less prone to this. Unless you are going for artistic effects flare is probably best dealt with by planning to be dropped on the sunny side of the whales and good operators will try to achieve this.

If I were doing it I'd want to be using a fisheye lens, they work well in small ports and are quite sharp, you do need to pay attention to corners as they can be easy to include stray fins and other distractions on the edge of the frame. The WACP will certainly work, it's just not quite as wide.

Investment in a Nikonos 13 might be an option (specially for humpback encounters), but expensive and not suitable with your August timeframe tho.

I got rid of my WACP-C and got RS13, havent missed WACP-C a single bit.

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by Sokrates

8 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

I believe you are talking about different lenses. @dentrock is talking about the Sony 16-25, you are talking about the 16-35 II.

I think the issue with the 230mm dome is living with it for travel, the size and weight when diving with it, including the drag when trying to swim with it.This is as much or more of a concern than the expense.

With whales you are jumping off a boat and swimming around trying to get in position - a 230mm dome is not going to make that easy.

you are also asking about flare, and mentioned problems with your ikelite port with reflections - these are different issues and causes. Acrylic ports are known to cause reflection issues and glass domes are less prone to this. Unless you are going for artistic effects flare is probably best dealt with by planning to be dropped on the sunny side of the whales and good operators will try to achieve this.

If I were doing it I'd want to be using a fisheye lens, they work well in small ports and are quite sharp, you do need to pay attention to corners as they can be easy to include stray fins and other distractions on the edge of the frame. The WACP will certainly work, it's just not quite as wide.

Hey Chris,

Thanks for the great feedback. I like the fisheye option, but since it's not a native Sony lens and requires adapters, I'm a bit hesitant. I was also thinking that with whales, having the flexibility and extra reach of a 16–35mm could be really useful?

So, to summarize: if you were heading to French Polynesia specifically for whale photography, what would your lens choice be?

I'll also be going to Fakarava afterwards to dive the Wall of Sharks, so I'm trying to find the best overall setup for the trip.

2 hours ago, Sokrates said:

Investment in a Nikonos 13 might be an option (specially for humpback encounters), but expensive and not suitable with your August timeframe tho.

I got rid of my WACP-C and got RS13, havent missed WACP-C a single bit.

thanks for you response. Why did you get rid of the WACP-C?

9 hours ago, ChipBPhoto said:

Hey @AlexUW26 - great questions. Everything has a trade off.

Have I experienced flare when aiming at certain angles pointing up towards the sun?

On occasion, yes. And with the WWL as well.

Is it frequent or did it impact my overall photo session?

Not in the least.

It’s something you can easily see when making the image, and equally easily slightly modify the angle to eliminate the momentary flare. It actually has nothing to do with depth as I have encountered it at 100’. Its simply the light coming in.

As an added bonus, it is incredible if you like CFWA images. It can focus at near macro closeness making it an all around solution.

As I said, everything has a trade off. The smaller size, sharpness, and versatility easily offset the minor quirk. I have other lenses and domes I use for specific needs, but for a great all around solution I personally feel it’s a winner.

Hope this helps!

Chip

Hey Chip,

Thanks for the great feedback. It’s good to hear that flare isn’t a major issue.

May I ask when you tend to use your dome instead of the WACP-C, and vice versa?

28 minutes ago, AlexUW26 said:

thanks for you response. Why did you get rid of the WACP-C?

Size for travel. RS13 weights 1070g total (lens and port). Some sizes/weights were discussed here.

Actual size is this:

And its sharper than any water contact optic and most (if not all) dome combos.

Drawbacks are fixed 13mm and availability.

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by Sokrates

20 hours ago, AlexUW26 said:

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?

With a large dome you can do over unders. But inme wide rectlinear lenses are not as good as Naticam wet optics for corner to corner sharpness. You need a fisheye for that. The wwls are quick and easy to burp, and inme often not even needed, the wacp and dome has the advantage of being ready immediately. WWL:s a little sensitive to creating ugly (not cool looking ones) flares when you shoot against the sun. Have never experienced that delicacy with domes.

Edited 31 minutes ago31 min by Christian K
Fat fingers