46 minutes ago, Chris Ross said:

Try again:

https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/1438-testing-nauticam-n120-port-extension-for-140mm-and-180mm-domes-with-wide-angle-lenses/?&do=findComment&comment=13817

The links on the forum are not active everywhere in the box, you have to hover over the title, caught me out a few times, hopefully this link works, it's just to show minimal difference with a change in extension on a fisheye.

Thanks, this link works.
Actually, I was already reading the whole thread a few days ago (before I started this thread).

6 hours ago, waso said:

Actually, I was already reading the whole thread a few days ago (before I started this thread).

..and that should have brought you to the conclusion not to use WWL on Canon Naughtycam Systems and put a 3rd party dome on your shopping list.

Please report back WASO once you have some shots with what you bought.

4 hours ago, Adventurer said:

..and that should have brought you to the conclusion not to use WWL on Canon Naughtycam Systems and put a 3rd party dome on your shopping list.

Please report back WASO once you have some shots with what you bought.

Actually, the WWL was never on my shopping list.
Before I started this thread, I was almost sure to buy a WACP-C.🫢

After Christmas, I will first buy and modify the Commlite RF/EF adapter to determine how big the IQ difference is compared to the older Kenko and after that, I'll probably buy the 140mm FE Port.

6 hours ago, waso said:

Actually, the WWL was never on my shopping list.
Before I started this thread, I was almost sure to buy a WACP-C.🫢

Actually I also had a long period, where I thought, I might be missing out on something, not owning a WAPC-C or other Nauticam Water Contact Optic. They are just so heavily hyped and raved by various (officially not paid) talking heads on the internet.

The death sentence for WAPC-C was this very honest review by Interceptor121 :

Interceptor121 Photography & Video Workshops

Nauticam WACP-C vs WWL-1

I am conscious that a post like this is destined to create some stir, however it reflects over one month of testing of the two Nauticam water contact optics with my A1 and summarizes my conclusion …

Wrap Up

As you can see by yourself there is really nothing between the two optics and clearly the difference between the wet and dry version is simply in the ergonomics and of course the price. For me there is no reason to consider the WACP-C unless you have serious issues with a wet mount.

Edited December 16, 2025Dec 16 by Adventurer

Thanks for the link!

It will provide me with good entertainment for this evening. 😁

Is there a decision by now? I’ve also been searching for the right ultra-wide-angle solution for a long time.

At the moment I’m using a Canon R5 with the 15–35mm f/2.8 and an 8.5" acrylic dome. With the 70 mm extension, the acrylic dome always tends to float upwards, which really annoys me.

I’ve also tried the EF 8–15mm, both with and without the 1.4× Kenko teleconverter. However, I don’t always find the fisheye look to be the right fit.

I also tested the RF 24–50mm with the WWL-C. I actually found the image quality to be very good, and a friend of mine uses the same combination as well — mainly because of the lower weight and the versatility.

1 hour ago, Landvogt1893 said:

Is there a decision by now? I’ve also been searching for the right ultra-wide-angle solution for a long time.

At the moment I’m using a Canon R5 with the 15–35mm f/2.8 and an 8.5" acrylic dome. With the 70 mm extension, the acrylic dome always tends to float upwards, which really annoys me.

I’ve also tried the EF 8–15mm, both with and without the 1.4× Kenko teleconverter. However, I don’t always find the fisheye look to be the right fit.

I also tested the RF 24–50mm with the WWL-C. I actually found the image quality to be very good, and a friend of mine uses the same combination as well — mainly because of the lower weight and the versatility.

No decision yet.

Right now I'm busy selling off the remaining Seacam equipment and a few Nauticam items, ordering the Commlite adapter and then testing it in comparison with the Kenko on my 8-15.

Personally, I'm not interested in a rectilinear wide-angle lens behind the dome as the optical quality has simply been too poor in my experience.

If you have sample shots and 100% crops from the corners with your RF 24-50/WWL-C, it would be nice to have a look.

On 1/13/2026 at 10:25 AM, Landvogt1893 said:

I also tested the RF 24–50mm with the WWL-C. I actually found the image quality to be very good, and a friend of mine uses the same combination as well — mainly because of the lower weight and the versatility.

On 1/13/2026 at 12:29 PM, waso said:

If you have sample shots and 100% crops from the corners with your RF 24-50/WWL-C, it would be nice to have a look.

On 12/29/2025 at 1:50 PM, Adventurer said:

I’ve been examining the Canon RF 24-50mm STM lens on full-frame bodies and noticed something important: this lens, often recommended by housing manufacturers, does not actually project image corners onto the sensor at 24mm and not even fully at 28mm in uncorrected RAW. In other words, the much-discussed corner sharpness that underwater photographers focus on isn’t even present at those wide ends, because the image simply doesn’t cover the full sensor corners natively.

It's very ironic that you start to discuss about corner sharpness performance of a lens that does not project corners at all to the sensor 🤣 😂 ... But I am 100% with WASO and would love to see some RAW files with that lens + WWL-C.

Edited 8 hours ago8 hr by Adventurer

2 hours ago, Adventurer said:

It's very ironic that you start to discuss about corner sharpness performance of a lens that does not project corners at all to the sensor 🤣 😂 ... But I am 100% with WASO and would love to see some RAW files with that lens + WWL-C.

If you mean me – where did I say that the corners are super sharp?

1 hour ago, Landvogt1893 said:

If you mean me – where did I say that the corners are super sharp?

Yes, I think you are the man who can provide RAW images required by waso. But no, about the sharp corner part that was requested requested by waso, not you.

So do you have an underwater RAW file at @24mm hand, you might want to share?
It might also be interesting to find out how hard the black corners still come through with the camera submerged + WWL-C attached and at what zoom level ( @28mm @30mm ? ) there will be real corner projection onto the sensor by this lens combination. As I did buy the lens and also have a zoom gear for my housing, I am still pondering with the Idea of adding a wetlens in front to figure out if it is really worth it. I would be very thankful if you @Landvogt1893 could contribute it to this thread with image examples:

The lens needs to be corrected; otherwise, there is noticeable vignetting at 24 mm. That’s why I was surprised by your statement that you find it ironic, especially regarding corner sharpness.

Overall, this lens in this combination is a good compromise, but it’s not for pixel peepers.

Booth are taken with 24mm.

Send me a PN and i will give you the link to my onedrive with the raw´s

1/200 F10 ISO 320

1/200 F9 ISO400

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by Landvogt1893

3 hours ago, Landvogt1893 said:

The lens needs to be corrected; otherwise, there is noticeable vignetting at 24 mm. That’s why I was surprised by your statement that you find it ironic, especially regarding corner sharpness.

Overall, this lens in this combination is a good compromise, but it’s not for pixel peepers.

Booth are taken with 24mm.

I believe what is happening is the lens has a lot of uncorrected barrel distortion and relies on software correction. Barrel distortion stretches the corners out and the corrected image needs to be cropped after correction. So Canon designed it a bit wider than 24mm to accomodate the cropping and the end result is black corners in the uncorrected image.

There may be some benefit in in shooting uncorrected and zooming in till the vignetting stops as you really mostly don't need the corrections UW, it's no different to shooting a fisheye. If you don't do the software correction to remove the barrel distortion the overall image quality can improve. Whether it's worth the trouble I don't know, you would have to manually pick the widest zoom setting you can live with on the uncorrected lens and it would be fiddly.

I agree the lens is a compromise, it seems like there might be sample variation as well, some land reviews give it a poor rating and others say it is quite good including sites that do performance testing.