What are your thoughts on the Nauticam WWL with the 14-42 EZ lens? I like the idea of having a narrower field of view with shy subjects. Do any of you use both the 8mm 1.8 and the 14-42 EZ with the WWL? Also, at what point do macro / close-ups start to degrade? I hear it is nearly as good as the WACP.

There are quite a few people using that combination on site - there was some discussion a while back I recall that the non pancake Panasonic 14-42 has the best optical quality and i also recall that at the long end the 14-42 lenses were a little soft compared to the wide end.

The WWL at 130 degress is about equivalent to coverage of a 7mm rectiliear (14mm FF equivalent) across the horizontal axis and it has mild barrel distortion (fisheye effect), you don't get the strong distortion of a full frame fisheye which bring the subject forward and larger in the image. I considered the WWL but didn't end up going that way.

You talk about macro performance, the WWL will focus all the way up to the glass and any degradation when doing that at the long end comes from the performance of the lens at the long end focusing close.

Your alternative that is a a single lens solution is an adapted Canon 8-15, it is quite expensive, but has superb optical quality throughout the zoom range. It is doesn't quite have the reach of the WWL at the long end of the zoom range. It can be done with off the shelf parts in Isotta (and would be quite a bit cheaper) or you need a 3D printed adapter ring to use in a Nauticam system to use the zoom gear. In Nauticam the housing is quite heavy and needs a lot of buoyancy added. The downside is less reach at the long end, but if 28mm equivalent is enough it's a great option that gives you a full fisheye and 7-14 lens in a single package. and overlaps the first half of the 14-42/WWL combo.

This topic shows some land based shots so you can how the lens performs:

I own both the Oly 14-42 and WWL combination and the Oly 8mm fisheye with the 140mm glass port. I use both, as there are scenarios where both are indispensable - and I make my selection based on what it is I am hoping to shoot. The 14-42 is a great workhorse, suitable for most situations unless you have a particular shot in mind. At the 14 end, it doesn't have as much distortion as the fisheye, but does have less sharp corners (if that's a concern). At the 42 end, it presents a nice mid-range option that works well with shyer subjects, but it is a little softer.

A couple of downsides: the combo is rather heavy (although I have the first generation WWL that may be heavier than successive ones) and the Oly lens does have a known issue where the copper track wears out as the lens moves forward and back - I am on no. 2. The sign of this is an error message "please check the status of a lens" that is coupled with an aperture value of -/-. Basically, the connection breaks.

For macro, it's ok, but noticeably softer than a dedicated macro lens.

All below taken with the WWL and at 14mm except the lionfish (29mm), anthias and frogfish (42mm)

Best

Justin

I have the Lumix 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 II OIS paired with WWL-1B. Gorgeous at 14mm and really soft from about 35mm to 42mm. IDK if it's the lens itself or the WWL. Great combo for video work anyway.

I run the original WWL-1 in front of the rather special (in my mind) Olympus 13-50.

I like the bit more reach on the top end along with it being internal zoom and weather sealed. Plus it fits in the 60mm macro port.

4 minutes ago, Grantmac said:

I run the original WWL-1 in front of the rather special (in my mind) Olympus 13-50.

I like the bit more reach on the top end along with it being internal zoom and weather sealed. Plus it fits in the 60mm macro port.

Does it vignette on the wide end?

13 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

Does it vignette on the wide end?

You have to shoot the WWL-1 at 28mm FF equivalent. So yes, HOWEVER, at 14-15mm the lens both performs better and doesn't vignette.

CORRECTION: it's 12-50 not 13-50 and I like it although apparently quality varies among samples. It's also quite long which I don't mind.

Edited September 28Sep 28 by Grantmac

I have both. For comparison, it's worth mentioning all three. [1] - Fisheye 8mm f1.8, [2] - 7-14mm f/2.8 and [3] - 14-42mm EZ for WWL. Summary: 14-42 + WWL is a good setup, but only good. It's nothing miraculous, and AF is particularly problematic in waters with poor visibility. Subjectively, AF with the 14-42 EZ is significantly slower and less reliable, even on modern bodies. But the setup is small and versatile.

Personally, I hardly ever use it [3]. Fisheye [1] is a completely different story, but that's fisheye with all its advantages and disadvantages. The setup [1] can be described as almost perfect. If I don't want a fisheye and the water has poor visibility, I almost always choose the 7-14mm [2]. Even at the cost of diving with a large dome port (and I am freediving so size matters a lot). Only if good visibility is "guaranteed" and I explicitly don't want a fisheye, then I resort to the WWL-1.

Back in 2021, I took four sets with me to compare how I would use them in the same locations (picture). The WWL-1 + CMC-1 set [3] was OK; it's just a versatile lens that can do almost everything, but nothing excellently.

If I were completely new to MFT and knew what I know now and had the choice of only one set, I would definitely go with the 8mm f1.8. Or go with 60mm f/2.8 if the macro is the way (EMWL 160 and than may be EMWL 60/100). WWL would be my first choice for MFT only if I were interested in video (but I don't know much about that, and there are definitely more qualified people in the forum).