Sorry, I meant a Sony full-frame camera with a Nauticam housing.

Edited October 3Oct 3 by Assist91

On 10/3/2026 at 7:00 AM, boduoguo said:

I have an idea: could this lens be used with a 4.33 Nauticam acrylic lens hood? If it can be used with the support of an extension ring of a certain length, it would make for a very lightweight setup with my A6700.

I'm sure it would work fine, you just need to work out the correct extension.

10 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

I'm sure it would work fine, you just need to work out the correct extension.

I rented this lens to try it out next week.

Looking forward to seeing some pics & if it can be used across the full range or needs to be set for 14mm like the Canon 8-15mm had to be used at 15mm

4 hours ago, JMC22 said:

Looking forward to seeing some pics & if it can be used across the full range or needs to be set for 14mm like the Canon 8-15mm had to be used at 15mm

My guess is it will be the same as the 8-15, but we will see. It could be a loss of flexibility if there are no options for a TC.

The new Nauticam N100 140 port with removable shade design is a great addition. Easily being able to remove and replace underwater will be a big improvement.

11 hours ago, JMC22 said:

Looking forward to seeing some pics & if it can be used across the full range or needs to be set for 14mm like the Canon 8-15mm had to be used at 15mm

There's no reason for it to be any different, certain lenses might achieve maximum field at something like 13mm and then zoom in a little, but these lenses achieve a 180deg circular image and a 180 deg diagonal field utilising the whole sensor at the other end In between it is vignetted but not a full circle. It's really only a zoom on APS-C between about 10mm and 14mm or so.

At the moment if you want to use a TC to get the flexibility of zooming the Canon 8-15 remains the only game in town - it works due to the fact you have the back focus needed to use with a DSLR and you can use the Sony TC with the nose tucked inside the Metabones adapter. It will remain that way till someone releases a TC in Sony mount that doesn't have the nose and which allows you to attach to the lens.

I rented a lens to try using it with the 4.33 acrylic lens hood.

Focal length 9.5, aperture F5.6

Focal length 9.5, aperture F8

Focal length 9.5, aperture F11

Focal length 14, aperture F5.6

Focal length 14, aperture F8

Focal length 14, aperture F11

A6700—I used a 30mm extension tube; that's the only one I have.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QuX9ByeLmYbh35-5lBL_n7Rbmg56VQJA/view?usp=drive_link, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JoIcTlep96-6RIW2IcgGYrHp-pCkeGhY/view?usp=drive_link,

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R5s-6KTeAQJVjOwKDjWXITOoeIxdpqbP/view?usp=drive_link, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gHqg_rckstzn3X5m-B6uAvsxJGySNOXS/view?usp=drive_link, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CYHKPlC6DiCYpYiUA9Kt8RQmTr3q-m7R/view?usp=drive_link, https://drive.google.com/file/d/18wu7zv6IVgfGnW3PTMHmRMecbIlDdagM/view?usp=drive_link

The photos I uploaded aren't very clear, so I've included a link for anyone who wants to download and view them.

Nauticam has updated their port chart.

I’m wondering how the Acrylic Port 18802 can be compatible if the sun shade isn’t removable. Wouldn’t it be visible in the frame at 8 mm?

I have been shooting with the Sony 8-14mm Fisheye for a couple of weeks now, and we have put together a first look review.

Backscatter.com

Sony 8-14mm Fisheye Lens — First Look Underwater - Underw...

For years, Sony full-frame underwater shooters have had a glaring hole in their gear bags: the lack of a native fisheye lens. To get that classic ultra-wide perspective, our only real option was to sh

4 hours ago, James Emery said:

I have been shooting with the Sony 8-14mm Fisheye for a couple of weeks now, and we have put together a first look review.

Thanks. Perhaps for the rest of us who already own the standard Nauticam 140 dome, and don't wish to spend AUD 2500 dollars on the new 140 just for this lens, you could give us the measurement from the new dome glass outer to the port flange?

Assuming both domes have the same radius, that will allow us to compare the built-in extension in the new dome, with the extensions we might have available to try with the old dome!

I could ask Nauticam but have no faith that they would respond...

Nauticam already lists the old port using N100-N120 35.5 extension. The only difference is the port shade for the old 140 has four Allen screws to remove the shade and the new 140 port now has a bayonet mount to remove the shade.

Both ports appear to be N120 and the new port just has a different N120 to N100 extension mounted on it.

Two threads going on this topic, one here and one in general chat is making this a bit confusing.

Edited Thursday at 09:51 PM2 days by Phil Rudin

1 hour ago, Phil Rudin said:

Nauticam already lists the old port using N100-N120 35.5 extension. The only difference is the port shade for the old 140 has four Allen screws to remove the shade and the new 140 port now has a bayonet mount to remove the shade.

Both ports appear to be N120 and the new port just has a different N120 to N100 extension mounted on it.

Two threads going on this topic, one here and one in general chat is making this a bit confusing.

Yes, but what is the actual length of the extension on the new port?

Results from the Sony NZ ambassador on page 1 of this thread suggest corner sharpness is not that good with the old port and just the 35.5mm adaptor.

I wonder if the built-in extension is actually a bit more than 35.5mm to optimise it for this new lens?

Surely someone can help us out here!!!!!

I don't believe the extension is "built-in" it looks more like the #37306 N100 to N120 25mm port extension combined with the #18816 140mm port with removable shade II used for Canon RF 7-14mm fisheye. If not that extension something shorter than 35.5 rather than longer since the 8-14mm lens is shorter than the Canon 8-15 with adapter.

Edited Friday at 03:46 PM1 day by Phil Rudin

18 hours ago, dentrock said:

Yes, but what is the actual length of the extension on the new port?

Results from the Sony NZ ambassador on page 1 of this thread suggest corner sharpness is not that good with the old port and just the 35.5mm adaptor.

I wonder if the built-in extension is actually a bit more than 35.5mm to optimise it for this new lens?

Surely someone can help us out here!!!!!

I can confirm it's the same as the N100 to N120, 35.5mm extension.

And it is built in.

4 minutes ago, James Emery said:

I can confirm it's the same as the N100 to N120, 35.5mm extension.

And it is built in.

Does that mean it is non removable?

2 hours ago, Dave_Hicks said:

Does that mean it is non removable?

Yes, the new N100 140mm port has a built in extension, it is not removable.

https://www.backscatter.com/Nauticam-N100-140mm-Optical-Glass-Fisheye-Dome-Port-II

Thanks James, that's exactly what I wanted to know.

When I eventually get mine, I will test it with another 10mm out of curiosity. Just waiting for black friday...

Now.... looking forward to your detailed review, especially an analysis of the corners at say, f8 to f11.

Im hoping that the detailed review would include 230mm dome vs 140mm dome comparison aswell. Nauticam lists the 230mm as the "recommended" over the new 140mm.

And maybe some split pictures also along with the normal corner sharpness review.

9 hours ago, Sokrates said:

Im hoping that the detailed review would include 230mm dome vs 140mm dome comparison aswell. Nauticam lists the 230mm as the "recommended" over the new 140mm.

And maybe some split pictures also along with the normal corner sharpness review.

This is what I'd love to see as well. I already have the 230mm dome and adapter-- but I was really hoping for the ability to use as a smaller/ compact setup. I'd also like to see a 10mm dome if one is produced by Zen Underwater. A comparison among the three would be really helpful.

2 hours ago, DriftC said:

This is what I'd love to see as well. I already have the 230mm dome and adapter-- but I was really hoping for the ability to use as a smaller/ compact setup. I'd also like to see a 10mm dome if one is produced by Zen Underwater. A comparison among the three would be really helpful.

Good questions. As far as a comparison, Alex Mustard did a great review years back between 100mm, 140mm, and 230mm domes.

Short answer from his review, the uber compact 100mm dome is a nice choice for an APS-C or perhaps low res FF option. As the resolution increases to the current high res FF cameras, the 140mm is the smallest option with, in his opinion, acceptable corners. The 230 dome leaps ahead if want to do splits or have the option of rectilinear lenses due to the substantially larger surface area.

I have personally used both the Zen 100 and the Nauticam 140 with either fisheyes for many years. Both are excellent options when paired with the appropriate body. (i.e. lower res vs. high res) I have also had limited success doing occasional splits with my 140 in very calm water such as in springs.

If you want the ability to add a teleconverter to your lens, especially in a FF setting, the 100mm suffers from edges that "smear." The 140 dome has no such issues with either the 1.4x or 2x TCs. I frequently use both with my 140 with a high res FF body.

The new Nauticam 140 domes are focused on usability such as removable / replaceable shade and the new N100 option to match the Sony 8-14 lens. It does not appear there will be much, if any, image quality difference compared to the previous N120 140 dome.

Edited 12 hours ago12 hr by ChipBPhoto

15 hours ago, Sokrates said:

Im hoping that the detailed review would include 230mm dome vs 140mm dome comparison as well. Nauticam lists the 230mm as the "recommended" over the new 140mm.

And maybe some split pictures also along with the normal corner sharpness review.

It is interesting that Nauticam applies the " * " to the 230mm dome for this fisheye lens while all of the other fisheye zooms have the 140 mm dome asterisked. The new type II dome is asterisked for the Canon 8-15 with Kenko 1.4x while the type I dome is preferred for the 8-15 alone, while the new dome is preferred for the Nikon 8-15 with and without the 1.4x.

It was previously suggested that the 140mm was preferred due to it being closer to a full hemisphere than the 230mm. Not so for the Sony lens at least and kind of shows that fisheyes may be less sensitive to precise dome positioning as the 230mm not being a full hemisphere requires the lens to be placed further forward in the dome.

It is said Nauticam bases the asterisk on testing, so leaves us wondering what is better about the 230mm dome images. I would have thought you would still base dome choice on whether splits of CFWA was your priority or even that you already had either a 230mm or 140mm dome.

Im also curious how the size of the front element may impact dome choice. I think this new sony fisheye is one of the smaller choices out there— are there any optical experts who can explain if that fact could allow for sharper photos with smaller domes?