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 Friday at 11:07 PM1 day 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 yesterday at 01:17 AM1 day 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 yesterday at 07:50 AM1 day 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 yesterday at 10:52 AM1 day 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. In my short but sweet experience with 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. Maybe a wwl-c specific?

Edited yesterday at 01:07 PM1 day by Christian K
Fat fingers

On Sony a good combo seems to be:

140mm dome

Canon 8-15

Sony 2.0 TC

My current wide angle setup is the mechanical Nikonos 15 or Sea&Sea 12mm and nothing is lighter or more compact.

However doing CFWA is a challenge with them and I intend on going the route above at some point as a general traveling setup.

Perhaps not as perfect as the RS or WACP-C but significantly cheaper and a touch more versatile.

12 hours ago, AlexUW26 said:

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?

Hey Alex,

Another great question. It’s all about the right tool for the right need.

If I want to capture an ultra wide scene, it’s the 140 dome and Canon 8-15, with and without a teleconverter. This could be massive reefscapes, wreckscape, or interior room to show an expansive 180 view.

If I want to do a typical all around dive or capture big animals where a true zoom is beneficial, it’s a WACP or WWL.

If I ever want to get serious about splits or need a rectilinear look, a 230 dome would be best. Thus far it has not been enough of an interest for me to warrant the investment.

Which is “better?” None, in my opinion. They are simply tools to maximize the photo opportunity or capture the desired image.

Cheers

Chip

Edited 18 hours ago18 hr by ChipBPhoto

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.

15 hours ago, AlexUW26 said:

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.

Quiet a few people here use the Canon fisheye with Metabones adapter, it's well established solution as Sony does not have a native fisheye.

On the topic of 16-35, some reach is helpful however I really don't think you want to be using a big dome when chasing whales. If you look at the WACP and 28-60 and the horizontal field of view - which shows approximately how big a subject will fit in the frame, it goes from about the field of a 13-14mm lens through about the the reach of a 29mm lens, so it terms of horizontal field it is like a 14-29mm lens and compare this to a 16-35 mm lens it's more or less the same, but with better corners of the frame in the WACP and better ability to shoot wider apertures.

The combination of a Canon 8-15 and a Sony/metabones on the other hand goes from a 180° diagonal fisheye with about 144° horizontal field of view through to a 28mm rectilinear lens, it's about equivalent to a 7-28mm rectilinear lens if you could get one. It's reported to have equivalent sharpness to a WACP/Sony 28-60 setup.

I would suggest the 28-35mm range won't be too useful for whales, at that focal length to fit in the frame a whale would be on the deg of visibility.

This post is a good one on the Sony 2x/metabones/140mm dome combination:

I have an OM-1 with Canon 8-15 on metabones and that is what I would be taking if going to shoot whales.

Since we are really splitting hairs now 😄

Here is my take.

One aspect nobody has talked about is shooting in murky water with the WWL.

In my experience, the WWL suffers from the same issues as the EMWL, and I don't see why it would be any different. I happened to shoot video in a river where there was a lot of mucilage in one area. The mucilage particles inevitably ended up in the space between the lens and the port. Unfortunately, you couldn't see anything with the naked eye on the monitor, and by the time I moved into an area with crystal-clear water, it was already too late. My buddy, using a standard port, brought home several good shots. Mine were all to be thrown away.

Also, for anyone who takes video seriously, I should point out that wet lenses that change the lens FOV trick the IBIS algorithm, which needs to know the focal length of the lens. The impact is minimal, but the footage will never be rock-steady.

People have always thought I was a bit crazy, and I believed this was a problem with Panasonic, which has the best IBIS on the market. Then recently, @bghazzal sent me a link to a Nauticam page about Sony cameras that talks about this exact issue:

Image Stabilization

The ⍺ series cameras feature incredible IBIS (In-body Stabilization) that works in conjunction with in-lens stabilization on many lenses. This greatly helps remove some of the inherent shake found in underwater video. You can enable Steady Shot (a lens must be attached to the camera when setting this) by going to 'Shooting' Tab > 'Image Stabilization' > 'Steady Shot' and turning it 'ON'.

NOTE: When using Nauticam Wet Optics such as the WACP or WWL or EMWL it is important to set the focal length manually as the camera uses the focal length of the attached lens to determine the corrections. You can do this by turning the 'Steady Shot Adjust' to 'Manual' and then heading to the next menu 'Focal Length' and choose one more appropriate to the lens such as '16mm'.

Nauticam "forgets" to mention that 99% of the time its users are using zooms and not prime lens...

Edited 10 hours ago10 hr by Davide DB

On 6/12/2026 at 5:31 PM, 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?

There is no flare problem when shooting sun with WACP-C. You will get flare with mispositioned strobes facing the WACP glass but not otherwise. For snorkel with whales its a non issue (no strobes)

Having said that I wouldn't bring WACP-C for whale snorkel trip. Never been on one but if it is anything similar to my Orca experience in Norway you are going to spend a lot of time on the small boat chasing the whales and jumping in and out of water. And so you may miss a lot of pictures and videos topside. With dome not so.

All my topside shots in Orca video are with camera inside of housing behind 180mm glass dome. Also one of attached pictures.

For Orcas I had 20-70 F4 with 180mm and 16-35 F4PZ which I haven't used. For whales I probably would.

Honestly I think that all technical discussions for snorkel trip are nonsense. The rule of the game is be light be quick and have great AF. Also external monitor will be invaluable for these shots floating on the surface extending arms down and getting shot from down below. Wed5Pro may prove to be the best investment :-). Good luck :-)

WACP-C

20-70 with glass dome

Edited 9 hours ago9 hr by RomiK

6 hours ago, RomiK said:

There is no flare problem when shooting sun with WACP-C. You will get flare with mispositioned strobes facing the WACP glass but not otherwise. For snorkel with whales its a non issue (no strobes)

Having said that I wouldn't bring WACP-C for whale snorkel trip. Never been on one but if it is anything similar to my Orca experience in Norway you are going to spend a lot of time on the small boat chasing the whales and jumping in and out of water. And so you may miss a lot of pictures and videos topside. With dome not so.

All my topside shots in Orca video are with camera inside of housing behind 180mm glass dome. Also one of attached pictures.

For Orcas I had 20-70 F4 with 180mm and 16-35 F4PZ which I haven't used. For whales I probably would.

Honestly I think that all technical discussions for snorkel trip are nonsense. The rule of the game is be light be quick and have great AF. Also external monitor will be invaluable for these shots floating on the surface extending arms down and getting shot from down below. Wed5Pro may prove to be the best investment :-). Good luck :-)

WACP-C

20-70 with glass dome

Hey Romik, thanks for the great feedback and great video! I actually have an extra camera that I can use for a top-down shot, so maybe the WACP-C would be the best option after all? :)

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by AlexUW26