9 hours ago, tailwind_marseille said:

Regarding what to shoot, I want it all ! :) Really, as a newbie it's hard to say. It's early to want to specialise in anything. The options we have here in Marseille are enormous, there's big fish (merou, barracuda, tuna, etc), large schools of many species, nudibranch everywhere, corals, and many wrecks. I've done night dives in wrecks that I wish I could repeat the conditions with a camera in hand.

I do seem to be attracted to wide angle and large apertures in my topside photos. I'm thinking it will be the same underwater.

What focal distance would you be thinking about when wanting to shot mid sized fish ?

Well, I would suggest that you base your selection on the availability of lenses and ability to easily add more lenses as time goes by without requiring a camera system change and the consequent new housing.

UW is quite different to land based photography. using wide angle lenses up close to reduce water between you and the subject. I tried for the first year or two to apply some land based techniques and found they didn't work so well. Placing a lens in a dome port doesn't make it just like on land , it's necessary to stop down to deal with the aberrations caused by dome port optics, most people shoot around f11-13 for wide angle behind a dome port, even fisheyes are generally stopped down. Some of the wetoptics can be opened up a bit more.

Typically a flexible solution involves a zoom lens, you can swim right up to a coral reef, but if you try doing the same thing to a shark or a tuna it will swim away. SO being able to zoom from a static subject to something with some more reach is very handy. By more reach it's something in the range of a 30mm equivalent lens on full frame. It's still significantly more reach than a fisheye.

Wide apertures are used in macro work, where you can actually create some good bokeh, in wide angle work it can create some rather ugly out of focus things in the corners. Here is an example of photo taken 17mm and f8 in a small dome, note the lower left corner:

https://uwaterphoto.com/?p=839

For fish portraits a longer zoom or a short macro lens tend to be good options.

Again I'd suggest rather than gravitating to a camera body go ahead and see what you would need for macro, mid range and wide in a couple of different systems, then see how much it will cost you and the weight and size. I don't know if you plan to travel for diving but a compact system makes traveling a lot easier.

You may not like the fisheye perspective for wrecks, that is down to taste.

A factor to consider is that behind a dome port you'll have to stop down to get decent sharpness in the corners. There is plenty written by far more intelligent people than I am about why.

11 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

UW is quite different to land based photography. using wide angle lenses up close to reduce water between you and the subject. I tried for the first year or two to apply some land based techniques and found they didn't work so well. Placing a lens in a dome port doesn't make it just like on land , it's necessary to stop down to deal with the aberrations caused by dome port optics, most people shoot around f11-13 for wide angle behind a dome port, even fisheyes are generally stopped down. Some of the wetoptics can be opened up a bit more.

Typically a flexible solution involves a zoom lens, you can swim right up to a coral reef, but if you try doing the same thing to a shark or a tuna it will swim away. SO being able to zoom from a static subject to something with some more reach is very handy. By more reach it's something in the range of a 30mm equivalent lens on full frame. It's still significantly more reach than a fisheye.

Wide apertures are used in macro work, where you can actually create some good bokeh, in wide angle work it can create some rather ugly out of focus things in the corners. Here is an example of photo taken 17mm and f8 in a small dome, note the lower left corner:

https://uwaterphoto.com/?p=839

For fish portraits a longer zoom or a short macro lens tend to be good options.

This is super useful ! Thanks.

Indeed, I was not sure how a dome port would affect optics. In the example you link to a wide-angle lens is used. Is it the same with a fisheye (I guess so... ?), or a fisheye "naturally" already has more corner softness (I'm thinking either of the Tokina 10-17mm or the Canon 8-15mm) ?

The Sony ecosystem, mostly due to the autofocus and friends/family using it, should be the way to go for me. I also looked into the Sony 10-18mm F4 wide-field as a possibility - it would be nicer for wrecks, but I would lose the extra FOV from the fisheyes... On the other hand, I would play with it topside more often than with a fisheye.

For macro... yeah, this is a little more tricky. I would be happy with CFWA (or fisheye), and the idea of using a teleconverter, line Tinman suggests, sounds interesting..

Regarding travelling, I'm not putting that into the equation. I've been diving mostly at my backyard which has plenty of life - even more since the coastal area became part of the Calanques National Park. I'm putting this kit together to shoot locally. If one day I'll go elsewhere and happen to dive there (this past summer I was in the Azores, and it was beautiful !) I'll just have to use my photographic memory instead... :P

12 hours ago, Tinman said:

I've got a Tokina fisheye for use with my Nikon DX systems. I never developed a fondness for it because I wasn't impressed with the field of view curvature, but that's just me. I did pick-up a Nikkor 8-15mm fisheye to use with my Nikon FX system. I think it will work better for me with a small dome for close focus wide-angle.

If you get a good housing, zoom control shouldn't be an issue. With the Tokina fisheye, a lot of photographers use it with a teleconverter to increase the versatility of the lens.

-Tinman

Won't a small dome (small means 6 inches... ? 4 .... ?) introduce more corner aberrations ? And would those be less obvious when zooming in? Another question, when you add a teleconverter does the minimum focusing distance of the lens change? The housing might be the weak link here... unless I find a more premium housing in the used market, I might have to go with Salted Line / Seafrogs.

10 hours ago, Grantmac said:

You may not like the fisheye perspective for wrecks, that is down to taste.

A factor to consider is that behind a dome port you'll have to stop down to get decent sharpness in the corners. There is plenty written by far more intelligent people than I am about why.

yeah, thanks for pointing this out. Chris post and the article he linked to make that clear enough !

I'm leaning towards the Sony 10-18mm lens that would work fine while using the Salted Line A6xxx housing (zoom ring available) and shouldn't require adapters, inside a 6 inch dome. But, I'm attracted by the possibilities of the Tokina (or the Canon).

13 hours ago, Tinman said:

I've got a Tokina fisheye for use with my Nikon DX systems. I never developed a fondness for it because I wasn't impressed with the field of view curvature, but that's just me. I did pick-up a Nikkor 8-15mm fisheye to use with my Nikon FX system. I think it will work better for me with a small dome for close focus wide-angle.

If you get a good housing, zoom control shouldn't be an issue. With the Tokina fisheye, a lot of photographers use it with a teleconverter to increase the versatility of the lens.

-Tinman

I fully agree - "fisheye look" is something that one loves or hates. Some UW-photographers hate it, but many like it (includig the ones that have wetoptics e.g. WACP/WWL from Nauticam (that also creates fisheye optics, but not as radical as circular or 180° diagonal as the diagonal angle of view is smaller (< 130°)))...

I don't think that one should use the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye with TCs. This lens is developed for APS-C(DX) and at 10mm, starts more or less, with 180° diagonal (addition of a TC would, to my personal opinion, rather decrease versatility).

In addition the optics of this lens is below average (on the surface) and it is o.k. for UW, but there are no reserves for "blowing up" the image with TCs. When using this lens on MFT sensor, the sharpness is better when the lens is adapted via the 0.71x speedbooster (that compresses the image circle and so increases sharpness on the sensor), compared to using the glassless 1x adapter (when using this lens with the glasless 1x adapter, the zoom range is pretty comparable to the WWL/WACP configurations BTW)...

On 1/15/2026 at 3:02 AM, tailwind_marseille said:

Regarding what to shoot, I want it all ! :) Really, as a newbie it's hard to say. It's early to want to specialise in anything. The options we have here in Marseille are enormous, there's big fish (merou, barracuda, tuna, etc), large schools of many species, nudibranch everywhere, corals, and many wrecks. I've done night dives in wrecks that I wish I could repeat the conditions with a camera in hand.

So, as for equipment, it seems really hard to cover all this. From what I've gathered, closer is better, and it seems a zoom lens in kinda pointless, so I thought about going with a prime for wide field (something like a Sigma 16mm F1.4) - but then I see also the Sony FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS and wonder if I won't get more flexibility from carrying that one around in a dive... or even the Sony 10-20mm F4, or the Sony 11 mm F1.8. I do seem to be attracted to wide angle and large apertures in my topside photos. I'm thinking it will be the same underwater.

As for macro, eventually, but initially I think I'll be focusing more on reef, large fish, schools of fish, before becoming frustrated about not getting a good shot of that tiny thing. What focal distance would you be thinking about when wanting to shot mid sized fish ?

Hello Tailwind_marseille.

My opinion: primes are fine, but you might reconsider the Sigma 16mm for APS-c. It’s a great topside lens, but you’ll find the angle of view underwater less than ideal for most subjects. Zooms really do add flexibility and using the 16-35mm means that you’re heading down the full-frame rabbit hole which means bigger lenses and more expensive housings. Consider using a kit lens, which tend to be smaller, and add wet wide angle and close-up lenses. This will cover most everything underwater - maybe not as well as dedicated lenses and ports - but it will create a portable kit and you can use it for years. If you find you like fish portraits and nudibranchs, then a dedicated macro is the way to go.

Good luck!

Craig

On 1/15/2026 at 3:05 AM, tailwind_marseille said:

I already have a housing for the TG-6. No strobes yet. It was the search for strobes + wet lenses for the TG-6 that made me think I want to go right away for something with a larger sensor, for better depth of field. I already have an old D3300 that I carry around, but it's old focus system and expensive housings make it pointless. I thought then of getting myself a newer APS-C that would perform well underwater.
And I agree with you, handles, arms, strobes, all that gets carried on.

I agree with @John Liddiard Add strobes to your TG system, and you’ll see a big difference in your images. You can also shoot video. It’s a very popular system for a reason, and best for fish portraits and macro.

You can also add a wet wide angle lens, even the Nauticam WWL-1. You might start with an “air” lens to reclaim the ability to shoot 25mm (which is narrowed underwater without it, and almost equivalent to your Sigma 16mm, mentioned above). This will also allow you to retain the excellent close focusing capabilities of the native camera.

Ultimately the decision will be yours, and many of us clearly have our own opinions about what works. Also, several of us have ventured down various photographic rabbit holes and lived to tell the tale - with much smaller bank accounts - which informs our opinions.

11 hours ago, tailwind_marseille said:

This is super useful ! Thanks.

Indeed, I was not sure how a dome port would affect optics. In the example you link to a wide-angle lens is used. Is it the same with a fisheye (I guess so... ?), or a fisheye "naturally" already has more corner softness (I'm thinking either of the Tokina 10-17mm or the Canon 8-15mm) ?

The Sony ecosystem, mostly due to the autofocus and friends/family using it, should be the way to go for me. I also looked into the Sony 10-18mm F4 wide-field as a possibility - it would be nicer for wrecks, but I would lose the extra FOV from the fisheyes... On the other hand, I would play with it topside more often than with a fisheye.

In fact fisheyes play better with domes, the Canon 8-15 is an amazingly sharp lens and the Tokina 10-17 works better UW than it does on land. This is because of dome port optics where the lens is focusing on a virtual image located around 3 dome radii from the dome surface. The Rectilinear wides are designed to focus on a flat plane. so struggle more and more towards the corners. The focal plane of a fisheye lens is curved around the lens so it matches the shape of the virtual image.

I dive temperate waters around Sydney and shoot mostly macro with some use of the 12-40 lens (24-80 equivalent) on offshore dives and also using my 8-15 fisheye there on occasions. I have a 7-14 lens (14-28 equivalent) and it uses the same dome as the 12-40, but I rarely use it. I'm not sure the 10-18 would be a great lens for CFWA. To be really effective this requires the lens to focus on the glass of a small dome. Fisheyes do this, but rectilnears have poor corner performance in small domes.

Fisheyes have barrel distortion which enlarges the centre of the field relative to the edges and this has the effect of bring the subject forward with the background seemingly receding and this gives the images more impact. The Tokina 10-17 zooms from 180° diagonal fisheye all the way through to about 23-24mm focal length range, so effectively combines the fisheye with the range of of a lens like the 10-18, it just doesn't quite have the reach, but it's close. The 22-24mm focal length range refers to the width of the frame of a wide angle (rectilinear) lens zoomed to about 24mm or so.