Has anyone shot the basic Sony 28-70 behind WACP? I'm asking because I was doing some cleaning and found that I had it, but never used it.

How does it compare with the 28-60 (which I own and love for its size/quality).

Thank you

Alex

It's been discussed here and also I think on old Wetpixel forum, here's one link I found:

There are probably other posts as well.

Thanks, I was asking on 28-70, not 28-60 which as you said has been well documented. I'll check wetpixel if it still works!

12 hours ago, waterpixel said:

Thanks, I was asking on 28-70, not 28-60 which as you said has been well documented. I'll check wetpixel if it still works!

The post I linked discusses the 28-70 briefly here and in the table above it:

Thank you, i believe they were referencing the Sony 20-70f4, which is a different one than the 28-70 i was asking about.

However i did find a comment on wetpixel from Phil comparing both 28-60 vs 28-70, and he mentions he prefers 28-60! (Feb 2021)

Thanks!

10 hours ago, waterpixel said:

Thank you, i believe they were referencing the Sony 20-70f4, which is a different one than the 28-70 i was asking about.

However i did find a comment on wetpixel from Phil comparing both 28-60 vs 28-70, and he mentions he prefers 28-60! (Feb 2021)

Thanks!

Have a look at the table they are comparing 4 different lenses to the 28-60 and saying the 28-70 is not as good as the 28-60.

Copyright © 2025 WaterPixels. All Rights Reserved Powered by Invision Community

For the original poster, Alex I have used both the Sony 28-60 and 28-70 kit lenses with WACP-1 (native N120) and both also work with WACP-1B (native N100). The 28-70 uses an additional 20mm of extension, does not focus as fast as FE 26-60 and if you look at many land reviews the 28-60 out performs the 28-70. In real world use with water contact lenses you won't see large differences between the two lenses in terms of IQ. I don't think it's a big mystery that a kit lens introduced by Sony in 2021 would have improved over a Sony kit lens introduced in 2013.

By the introduction of the WACP-C I had sold the 28-70 so can only comment on WACP-1, however I would expect results to be about the same. Since I rarely used the 70 or 60mm end of the lenses I don't miss the difference. Any comments from wet pixel you may have seen would I believe reference overall performance not just IQ. I have found best results with both lenses to be in the F/8 to F/11 range even though with full frame my normal starting point is F/13+/-

I reviewed the WACP-C and both the WWL-1 and WWL-1B in past issues of UWPMAG.com.

As a sidebar the first Nauticam wet wide lens I tested was the WWL-1 and I used the Sony 28mm F/2 lens for that review because 28-60mm was not yet released. Nauticam still offers an N100 32 flat port for that lens but it is not shown on the port charts for use with WWL-1/1B.

Last what is hardly ever talked about when involved in a wet wide lens discussion regardless of brand is Depth Of Field. While many of these lenses advertise a 130 degree diagonal AOV it has become clear to me and many others who have used these lenses extensively that DOF is far less than what you get with a lens of the same 130 degree AOV behind a dome port. This became blatantly obvious to me when I tested the Laowa 10mm F/2.8 a 130 degree rectilinear lens against images taken with wet lenses of the same130 AOV.

Edited 21 hours ago21 hr by Phil Rudin

6 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

Last what is hardly ever talked about when involved in a wet wide lens discussion regardless of brand is Depth Of Field. While many of these lenses advertise a 130 degree diagonal AOV it has become clear to me and many others who have used these lenses extensively that DOF is far less than what you get with a lens of the same 130 degree AOV behind a dome port. This became blatantly obvious to me when I tested the Laowa 10mm F/2.8 a 130 degree rectilinear lens against images taken with wet lenses of the same130 AOV.

Hi Phil, one thing to note is that in reality the WWL is not equivalent to a 10mm rectilinear. They both have a 130° Diagonal field of view, but the horizontal field with WWL/WACP is about that of a 14mm rectilinear lens which has a 104° horizontal field while the 10 mm Laowa has a 121° horizontal field. This is due to the barrel distortion stretching the corners.

So the correct lens to compare it to is a 14mm rectilinear behind a dome. The 14mm has more magnification and so less DOF. Would you say that the WWL still has less DOF than a 14mm rectilinear behind a dome?

The short answer is yes, also keep in mind that I found WWL-1B to be noticeable wider when used with the Marelux N100 to 5 inch, 17mm adapter. I have used Laowa 10 & 12mm, and at least four different versions of both 14mm and 14mm zooms that have all had better DOF. This is an issue I was discussing with a well known U/W photographer at DEMA who has compared fisheye water contact optics V. lenses like Canon 8-15mm in 140 to 230mm domes and he remarked that the differences are even greater with fisheyes.

I have used 28-60/70 zooms and the 28mm F/2 and DOF at 28mm is about the same across all of the wet optics I have tried that are advertised to be 130 degrees. With WACP-2 you can use lenses up to 14mm and DOF then improves.