I asked for opinions to upgrade my WACP-C which I was using w Sony 28-60mm kit lens a few months ago to something wider but still retaining flexibility. Based on the advice I ultimately landed on Canon 8-15 fisheye with a Sony 2x TC, Metabones V adapter (very important it has to be the V, I had the Metabones IV and it couldn't fit) behind the 140mm glass dome. I've since done 3 trips with this and couldn't be happier with the setup.

I want to show a few photos to demonstrate the versatility of this lens. You can take whale sharks all the way to pgymies!!

For wide angle I think the image quality is the same or better than my old WACP-C. I didn't do any tests but this is just based on feel after processing thousands of images

These are photos on my last trip taken w Canon 8-15, Sony 2x combo. Everything here is with this lens.

https://joannaphotography38.pixieset.com/tritonbaywideangle/

Great for reefs capes and big schools of fish, and I appreciate the wider reach vs WACP-C. For macro I will zoom all the way then use APS-C mode as I am shooting A7R5 and it still produces a very usable image. Of course you still have the physical limitation of reach so it's not suitable for macro situations where you cannot get close (stuff deep in a hole or skittish subjects).

I did have to get a custom 3D printed zoom gear which @Gudge was super nice to design for me with very short notice.

Pixieset

Triton Bay - Wide Angle

Photo by Joanna Wang photography

Pixieset

Triton Bay - Wide Angle

Photo by Joanna Wang photography

Pixieset

Triton Bay - Wide Angle

Photo by Joanna Wang photography

Pixieset

Triton Bay - Wide Angle

Photo by Joanna Wang photography

Pixieset

Triton Bay - Wide Angle

Photo by Joanna Wang photography

Pixieset

Triton Bay - Wide Angle

Photo by Joanna Wang photography

Looks great Joanna, thanks for reporting back it is indeed very flexible.

3 hours ago, jjmochi said:

I asked for opinions to upgrade my WACP-C which I was using w Sony 28-60mm kit lens a few months ago to something wider but still retaining flexibility. Based on the advice I ultimately landed on Canon 8-15 fisheye with a Sony 2x TC, Metabones V adapter (very important it has to be the V, I had the Metabones IV and it couldn't fit) behind the 140mm glass dome. I've since done 3 trips with this and couldn't be happier with the setup.

I want to show a few photos to demonstrate the versatility of this lens. You can take whale sharks all the way to pgymies!!

For wide angle I think the image quality is the same or better than my old WACP-C. I didn't do any tests but this is just based on feel after processing thousands of images

These are photos on my last trip taken w Canon 8-15, Sony 2x combo. Everything here is with this lens.

https://joannaphotography38.pixieset.com/tritonbaywideangle/

Great for reefs capes and big schools of fish, and I appreciate the wider reach vs WACP-C. For macro I will zoom all the way then use APS-C mode as I am shooting A7R5 and it still produces a very usable image. Of course you still have the physical limitation of reach so it's not suitable for macro situations where you cannot get close (stuff deep in a hole or skittish subjects).

I did have to get a custom 3D printed zoom gear which @Gudge was super nice to design for me with very short notice.

Pixieset

Triton Bay - Wide Angle

Photo by Joanna Wang photography

Pixieset

Triton Bay - Wide Angle

Photo by Joanna Wang photography

Pixieset

Triton Bay - Wide Angle

Photo by Joanna Wang photography

Pixieset

Triton Bay - Wide Angle

Photo by Joanna Wang photography

Pixieset

Triton Bay - Wide Angle

Photo by Joanna Wang photography

Pixieset

Triton Bay - Wide Angle

Photo by Joanna Wang photography

Very interesting Report and cool photography! So 140mm Port plus 35.5 n100 to 120 was used but with What Extension Ring size ? Could a 1.4 teleconverter also work? Greetings Michael

Nice! I have a pygmy or two for you to compare :-) (WACP-C)

I went the other way. It helped that I already had 8-15 and TC2x so it didn't hurt that much just having 140mm glass and port extension lying around these days (and waiting for the right opportunity :-)

Jokes aside my decision was influenced not so much by picture quality rather then by my use case - I do both on the same dive, photo and video and in video department metabones is just not there as far as the focus goes.

I also think that - surprisingly to me - at the long end the WACP-C/28-60 was a tad sharper than 8-15/TC. (While the same 28-60 paired with WWL-1B was really disappointing).

But all in all each use case is different and I can totally see that the desire for extreme - and flexible - wide angle would present this 8-15/TC as the best option.

Thanks for report! Cheers.

Edited Sunday at 08:14 AM2 days by RomiK

1 hour ago, Michi said:

Very interesting Report and cool photography! So 140mm Port plus 35.5 n100 to 120 was used but with What Extension Ring size ? Could a 1.4 teleconverter also work? Greetings Michael

Hi Michael,

I used Sony 1.4x, 2x, Kenko 1.4x HD Pro and Kenko 2x TCs with the Canon 8-15mm. One can use them all...

It is difficult to predict how a WA fisheye lens will perform with a TC, as all TC were not designed for this use...

I got best results, regarding IQ, with Sony 2x and Kenko 1.4x HD Pro, the other two TCs performed less good. Surprisingly, Sony 1.4x performed not better (maybe even a bit worse) compared to Sony 2x...

With Kenko 1.4x HD Pro the extension is the same as with Sony 2x, so you can use the same zoomgear (at least one can use the same 3D printed extension ring for the "regular" Nauticam zoom gear, that I am using)...

Wolfgang

P.S.: I have both WACP-C/28-60mm and Canon 8-15mm with and w/o Sony 2xTC. On my last two trips WACP-C was left at home (Subjectively, I find IQ pretty comparable and prefer the 180° diagonal over the 130° of WACP-C (the Canon 8-15mm w/o TC can also be used on some dives and clearly performs optically better than both WACP-C or 8-15mm&2xTC variants (but is, of course, less flexible)))

Edited Sunday at 09:29 AM2 days by Architeuthis

10 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

Hi Michael,

I used Sony 1.4x, 2x, Kenko 1.4x HD Pro and Kenko 2x TCs with the Canon 8-15mm. One can use them all...

It is difficult to predict how a WA fisheye lens will perform with a TC, as all TC were not designed for this use...

I got best results, regarding IQ, with Sony 2x and Kenko 1.4x HD Pro, the other two TCs performed less good. Surprisingly, Sony 1.4x performed not better (maybe even a bit worse) compared to Sony 2x...

With Kenko 1.4x HD Pro the extension is the same as with Sony 2x, so you can use the same zoomgear (at least one can use the same 3D printed extension ring for the "regular" Nauticam zoom gear, that I am using)...

Wolfgang

P.S.: I have both WACP-C/28-60mm and Canon 8-15mm with and w/o Sony 2xTC. On my last two trips WACP-C was left at home (Subjectively, I find IQ pretty comparable and prefer the 180° diagonal over the 130° of WACP-C (the Canon 8-15mm w/o TC can also be used on some dives and clearly performs optically better than both WACP-C or 8-15mm&2xTC variants (but is, of course, less flexible)))

Hi Wolfgang, thx a lot! What Extension Rings are you using? Do you have Any clue about the Max coverage field angle for a „180 degree view 8-15 fisheye“ plus 2 x to at the windest end (without zooming in)? Can be also rough or in mm equivalent!?

Just want to report back that I am using the 8-15mm fisheye with Kenko 1.4x and 2.0x TC on a Canon, unable to take advantage of the Sony 2.0x TC…. but…

… recently I got myself the comlite EF RF and modified it to host the Canon RF 1.4x TC. I am really curious to try this and consider buying also the RF 2.0x TC to upgrade my IQ by a small fraction.

1 hour ago, Architeuthis said:

P.S.: I have both WACP-C/28-60mm and Canon 8-15mm with and w/o Sony 2xTC. On my last two trips WACP-C was left at home (Subjectively, I find IQ pretty comparable and prefer the 180° diagonal over the 130° of WACP-C (the Canon 8-15mm w/o TC can also be used on some dives and clearly performs optically better than both WACP-C or 8-15mm&2xTC variants (but is, of course, less flexible)))

yeah, 8-15 without TC is a beauty... sharpness and microcontrast are TOP!

2 hours ago, Adventurer said:

… recently I got myself the comlite EF RF and modified it to host the Canon RF 1.4x TC. I am really curious to try this and consider buying also the RF 2.0x TC to upgrade my IQ by a small fraction.

Didn't you make A/B comparison yet (just topside shots)?
My commlite is on it's way...

6 hours ago, Michi said:

Hi Wolfgang, thx a lot! What Extension Rings are you using? Do you have Any clue about the Max coverage field angle for a „180 degree view 8-15 fisheye“ plus 2 x to at the windest end (without zooming in)? Can be also rough or in mm equivalent!?

Hi Michi,

I normally use the Nauticam 35.5mm N100/N120 adapter plus the 25mm&35mm N120 extensions (totally 60mm) for the Nauticam 140mm domeport. When 8-15mm fisheye alone, I take just the 30mm N120 extension...

User Dreifish made careful testing for ideal positioning with regard to entrance pupil and recommends 5mm more. I tested this also, but did not find a noticeable difference in IQ and often the raw files showed vignetting, probably due to sensor IS and unstable holding of the setup...

On 2/8/2026 at 12:58 PM, Michi said:

Very interesting Report and cool photography! So 140mm Port plus 35.5 n100 to 120 was used but with What Extension Ring size ? Could a 1.4 teleconverter also work? Greetings Michael

I reused my old extension ring which was used for my WACP-C, the N100 30mm extension. 1.4x was also recommended but I wanted the 2x Sony TC to use for my Africa safari trip hence went with the 2x instead of buying both.

On 2/8/2026 at 1:13 PM, RomiK said:

I went the other way. It helped that I already had 8-15 and TC2x so it didn't hurt that much just having 140mm glass and port extension lying around these days (and waiting for the right opportunity :-)

I should've bought the used stuff from you haha. Joking aside I was able to get the 8-15 and metabones V second hand for quite cheap.

In my case I wanted wider than WACP-C after going to Halmahera and not being able to fit in that giant school of barracudas.

I was going to try 8-15 with no TC on the whale shark dive but forgot I don't have the zoom ring for this set up. Luckily it was wide enough even with 2x TC!

Edited 22 hours ago22 hr by jjmochi

Hello, thanks for the useful Feedback to @Wolfgang @Adventurer @jjmochi . Unfortunately I have the Sigma mc-11 and an Old Version of metabones nex to ef - my 1.4 tc doesn’t fit (like written in here before - the tc is too big and hole of Adapter to small but now you know mc-11 doesn’t fit as well… before I Jump In buying a new metabones Adapter: do you know if with the tc you can still zoom to have a wider field of view (like 180 degree field on the normal widest end 15mm without TC)? It would be critical for me to have a big coverage and a bit Zoom would be amazing)…Thx in Advance

30 minutes ago, Michi said:

Hello, thanks for the useful Feedback to @Wolfgang @Adventurer @jjmochi . Unfortunately I have the Sigma mc-11 and an Old Version of metabones nex to ef - my 1.4 tc doesn’t fit (like written in here before - the tc is too big and hole of Adapter to small but now you know mc-11 doesn’t fit as well… before I Jump In buying a new metabones Adapter: do you know if with the tc you can still zoom to have a wider field of view (like 180 degree field on the normal widest end 15mm without TC)? It would be critical for me to have a big coverage and a bit Zoom would be amazing)…Thx in Advance

The field can be estimated same way as any lens and 8-15 with 1.4x becomes a 11-21mm lens. You still get the full 180deg diagonal at 15mm actual focal length, this means 11-14.9mm (actual focal length vignettes with the corners dark, similar to what you see between 8 and 15mm on the bare lens.

I've done the calculations assuming an equisolid fisheye projection and with the 1.4x at 15mm FL (11.2mm on the zoom ring) the horizontal field is 144 deg, while zoomed all the way in to 21mm the field is 96 deg wide which is about equivalent to 16mm rectilinear lens. Comparing horizontal fields gives a better idea of coverage in my view.