Hi mates,

For 13 years i use the combo 8-15 with 100m dome (Aquatica) and now 140mm on Nauticam (complete switch to Nauticam with Canon R7 as Aquatica support in Europe is !$#@$).

However, i wanna more flex during science missions - mean to have wide and macro at the same time.

Thus am thinking to move to WWL II and CMC on the handy 18-45 Canon lens.

Has anybody experience on such switch?

I moved from SLR and assorted lenses to m4/3 with a kit zoom and wet lenses a few years back. It works well for a journalist approach to a dive site. One site, get the wide angle to set the scene, fish in the middle, then macro all in one dive, then swap back again when the whale shark shows up! Then on to the next site.

Wide angle is comparable to before the move. I find the main difference is on macro, where the CMC has to be close to the subject. A dedicated macro lens could achieve similar magnification from a little further away. In some situations that is a plus, and in some situations its a limitation. But its not a like-for-like comparison because I have never owned a dedicated macro lens for m4/3.

If choosing again today my ideal would be a primary lens 60 or 105 macro (full frame equivalent) and a wet lens to convert that to wide angle. I would loose the ability to zoom for convenience at the extremes. But the balance of my diving has changed. I used to do a lot more wreck diving. Now I do more macro diving. Without travelling with a full shed of camera kit most of us need to compromise somewhere.

6 hours ago, homodelphinius said:

Hi mates,

For 13 years i use the combo 8-15 with 100m dome (Aquatica) and now 140mm on Nauticam (complete switch to Nauticam with Canon R7 as Aquatica support in Europe is !$#@$).

However, i wanna more flex during science missions - mean to have wide and macro at the same time.

Thus am thinking to move to WWL II and CMC on the handy 18-45 Canon lens.

Has anybody experience on such switch?

There are various posts I recall about using the WWL in combo with a CMC. The biggest issue quoted is what to do with the big lump of a WWL when it's not mounted on the port, with some concern about the fact the lens has no way to attach a lanyard. I only recall one person saying they used the WWL/CMC combo and they thought it worked OK.

I would add that the quoted field of the the WWL is a 130deg diagonal lens, though the barrel distortion means that horizontal field which reflects what coverage you can achieve is about the same or very slightly wider than a 14mm rectilinear lens. The Horizontal field of a fisheye will be about 145 deg while the WWL will be around 105. You can go close to matching the WWL reach with the 8-15 plus 1.4x or even an adapted Tokina 10-17 but of course you can't add a CMC lens to that setup. You can focus up to the port glass and this allows you to image subjects down to about tennis ball size filling the frame reasonably well for CFWA type shots.

The CMC-1 will get you about 0.8x on the 18-45 and it only focuses between 44 and 81mm from the CMC glass, so it's not as easy to work with as a standard macro lens.

Whether it suits you likely depends somewhat which way you are leaning with the majority of the subjects you shoot. If it's mostly wide with the occasional macro or occasional wide with mainly variable sized macro. A macro lens with a wide wet lens would probably suit a wider range of macro sized subjects better than using a CMC with a kit zoom.

Hi @homodelphinius ,

Yes, I have extensive personal usage with both the 8-15/140 dome and the WWL.

In short, it's a trade off.

- 8-15/140: smaller package, but limited zoom capabilities. Focus is ultra-wide with 180 degree FoV. Solid for CFWA reefscapes and wrecks. The 8-15 is a sharp lens, fast focus, and very forgiving as to the exact focus point due to the nature of such a wide lens.

- The WWL is a much more versatile option that covers wide (not super-wide) to medium zoom range. At the wide end it is 130 degree FoV. There are a few times I miss having a wider option for expansive scenes, but those are very rare compared to the benefit of having a true working zoom option. The WWL is a water correcting lens which allows focusing to basically have the subject touching the glass dome. I have successfully photoed near macro level images of flamingo tongues with ease. Adding the CMC provides a super macro option, but with an extremely short usable focus range. Basically you would be able to photo fairly wide reefscapes, CFWA scenes, near macro, and then with the CMC super macro all in one dive.

- Both the WWL and the CMC attach to the port via an adapter. You can purchase a similar adapter designed as a holder mounted to your housing or on a float arm to hold the lens you are not using at that time. Realistically, most everyone uses the WWL with a rare swap out to the CMC when an appropriate subject is found. It is a bit of pain to swap frequently which means it needs to be something really worth the effort to make the underwater swap, but it is there should you need it. A true macro lens with the CMC added would be best for a macro oriented dive.

While I dive 95% of the time with my WWL, I do occasionally still use the 8-15 if I am diving specially for ultra-wide scenes. The rest of my dives are with a dedicated macro setup.

There will be plenty that prefer a more traditional dome port and standard wide lens solution. There are benefits to each. It is important to focus on what your specific needs and desires are for your photography. Me personally, I like the zoom ability in a more compact design afforded with the WWL, especially considering the image sharpness delivered.

Hope this help!

chip

7 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

There are various posts I recall about using the WWL in combo with a CMC. The biggest issue quoted is what to do with the big lump of a WWL when it's not mounted on the port, with some concern about the fact the lens has no way to attach a lanyard. I only recall one person saying they used the WWL/CMC combo and they thought it worked OK.

WWL-C Lanyard - Fixed it! Just replaced the rubber grip with a printed TPU rubber version with a couple of loops built it. I made this after my original grip got cut somehow and I added loops to design of my replacement.

https://makerworld.com/en/models/637896-nauticam-wwl-c-collar-replacement-with-loops#profileId-563389

I move between the WWL-C (w/Nikon 24-50z) and the 140mm/8-15fe combo quite a bit. The WWL is more versatile for sure with the ability to shoot near-macro. The 8-15 is great for big, close pelagic animals and for CFWA. Even small or medium fish can be shot. (see below) You need to be more careful lighting the 8-15fe especially in murky waters, but the impact of a fisheye image can make up for the difficulty.

Nikon Z8 w/8-15mm Fisheye lens, f13@1/60s iso500, Pair of Backscatter HF-1 strobes

With the Canon 18-45 lens you will want the WWL-1 not the WWL-1C if getting the full 130 degree FOV is important. The WWL-1C will only get about 116 degrees with a base 18mm APS-C lens. The WWL-1 was designed for 28mm equivalent lenses and the WWL-1C was intended for 24mm equivalent lenses. The WWL-1 does have a lanyard attach point.

The WWL-1 and I imagine the WWL-1C are too large to use the flip adapters. Alignment is critical to prevent vignetting. I do not consider it practical to switch out between the CMC lenses and the WWL underwater. Simply too large and heavy and expensive. You can quickly switch out on the boat and go from one to the other. I do have a bayonet slot on my rigs to temporarily park the WWL for flat port work but no way I would leave that expensive and fragile piece of kit anywhere for long but on my port.

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by Nemrod

As the R7 is APS-C you can approach the range available with the WWL by adding the kenko 1.4x to the 8-15 lens As a bare lens it is usable between about 10mm to 15mm and adding a 1.4x it is still wider than the WWL at the widest setting. The horizontal fields I find are best for comparing lenses as this defines the size of subject you can fill the frame with. This table shows the calculated horzontal fields of view of the 8-15/8-15 with 1.4x/18-45 with WWL along with the approximate rectilinear equivalent focal length.

8-15	Horiz- field	Equivalent FL
10	141	fisheye
15	83	20
with 1.4x
11.2	114	12
21	59	32
18-45 - WWL
18	106	14
45	50	38

The barrel distortion in the fisheye zoom and WWL will be very close to the same at the same field of view, As you crop in by zooming the barrel distortion reduces progressively. The other point to note is I believe the WWL will have a little less depth of field at the same field of view, this was discussed on a thread on the forum recently. The 8-15 with 1.4x gives close to the same flexibility as the WWL combination, which has slightly more reach at the long end. Of course it doesn't allow adding a closeup lens.