After enjoying macro a ton with my 28-60 + CMC2, I'm planning to upgrade my macro setup and get the 100mm macro lens to pair with my A1 body. I've seen lots of people love the MFO-3 especially for black water photography so I was going to add that to my setup with a flip adapter. My unknown is whether it's worth it to add an SMC to the setup as well?

It's relevant now because I'd buy a double-flip instead of a single if I would want the SMC. But, if I'll be happy without the SMC then I'll save the $$ and weight of buying a double flip. Any thoughts or advice is appreciated!

35 minutes ago, akarnani said:

After enjoying macro a ton with my 28-60 + CMC2, I'm planning to upgrade my macro setup and get the 100mm macro lens to pair with my A1 body. I've seen lots of people love the MFO-3 especially for black water photography so I was going to add that to my setup with a flip adapter. My unknown is whether it's worth it to add an SMC to the setup as well?

It's relevant now because I'd buy a double-flip instead of a single if I would want the SMC. But, if I'll be happy without the SMC then I'll save the $$ and weight of buying a double flip. Any thoughts or advice is appreciated!

If you are thinking about saving money, buy one of the many used 90mm lens and port combos that people upgrading are selling off. The 100mm is no doubt better, but by how much really? By all accounts the 90mm setup works great with the A1, focusing fast and very sharp. The Tamron 90mm is also a quality option.

I only do video, not stills, but use the 100mm and MFO3 for blackwater-like shooting (bonfire dives, hovering in the water column at night).

My go-to setup on the A7SIII is the 100mm, MFO1 and MFO3 - I actually have a triple-flip, which I like for having the option to add a diopter for super macro for regular macro dives, but actually only use two lenses for blackwater-type shooting, as it's very difficult to find subjects static enough to go beyond the magnification given by the 100mm + MFO1 combo, and 80% of the footage is shot with the MFO3.

As Dave mentioned, the 90mm is fine (I chose the 100mm as it does have some advantages for video AF) - however, a double-flip could be handy with these lenses, so you have more options than MFO3 or the bare lens (diopters for super macro or MFO1)

Edited August 12Aug 12 by bghazzal

With the 100mm macro you already get 1.4x magnification, double than the best you do with the 28-60 (0.7x) and with more working distance. The question I would be asking is are you able to find subjects that need that sort of magnification? If you dive exclusively with expert guides in macro rich destinations you might get some use out it. Me - I'd be tempted to just crop a little if needed for extra small subjects as I don't find them that often, plus the depth of field won't be quite so diabolically thin.

I recall Alex Mustard saying on one his videos that his most used diopter was a +3 or a +5 diopter which gave just a little more than life sized which you already have with the 1.4x available natively, compared to a traditional macro lens with 1:1 magnification

8 hours ago, bghazzal said:

I only do video, not stills, but use the 100mm and MFO3 for blackwater-like shooting (bonfire dives, hovering in the water column at night).

My go-to setup on the A7SIII is the 100mm, MFO1 and MFO3 - I actually have a triple-flip, which I like for having the option to add a diopter for super macro for regular macro dives, but actually only use two lenses for blackwater-type shooting, as it's very difficult to find subjects static enough to go beyond the magnification given by the 100mm + MFO1 combo, and 80% of the footage is shot with the MFO3.

As Dave mentioned, the 90mm is fine (I chose the 100mm as it does have some advantages for video AF) - however, a double-flip could be handy with these lenses, so you have more options than MFO3 or the bare lens (diopters for super macro or MFO1)

What does the MFO-1 get you in this setup? Is it mainly the better working distance for black water, or does it improve clarity too? Do you use it on macro daylight dives?

1 hour ago, akarnani said:

What does the MFO-1 get you in this setup? Is it mainly the better working distance for black water, or does it improve clarity too? Do you use it on macro daylight dives?

Mainly 4cm less minimal focus distance, which is nice to have when critters move in close to the lens - it also acts like a limiter (which is interesting because it's best to turn of the lens focus limiter for the MFO3 as well )- it's basically my default rather than the bare 100mm lens - I haven't actually done tests comparing the 100mm with and without, but I did test the MFO1 before I changed to the A7SIII rig, on a 1" sensor LX10 compact and it was really impressive for blackwater:
Better image quality (crisper footage), snappier AF (I was shooting in manual with back button focus, but focus acquisition was really faster) and the number of focus points visible in focus peaking increased a lot. It was like an AF update pretty much, and the footage was really improved.

So I just kept using it on the 100mm when I switched, trusting that it would probably do good things (though the 100mm is already great by itself)
Yes, I also use it for standard macro dives. There is a slight increase in magnification, but otherwise you don't really notice it as much.

This is what I had measured on land in terms of working distance when it arrived:

https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/1810-nauticam-newest-mfo-1/page/4/#findComment-26197

Edited August 12Aug 12 by bghazzal

3 hours ago, akarnani said:

What does the MFO-1 get you in this setup? Is it mainly the better working distance for black water, or does it improve clarity too? Do you use it on macro daylight dives?

Gets you from 1.4 to 1.5x magnification with the 100mm macro at maximum, but the max magnification is in close, min focus is at 69mm compared to about 90mm for the base lens but it only focuses out to just over 1m, which is how it improves the AF by using full focus range rather than the max magnification range when shooting at macro distances.

27 minutes ago, Chris Ross said:

Gets you from 1.4 to 1.5x magnification with the 100mm macro at maximum, but the max magnification is in close, min focus is at 69mm compared to about 90mm for the base lens but it only focuses out to just over 1m, which is how it improves the AF by using full focus range rather than the max magnification range when shooting at macro distances.

Is it known whether the distance (front element (port or MFO-1, depending on usage) to object at 1.4x (both with and w/o) MFO-1 is the same?

11 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

Is it known whether the distance (front element (port or MFO-1, depending on usage) to object at 1.4x (both with and w/o) MFO-1 is the same?

I don't know, you'd have to test I think. The 69mm is as reported by Nauticam, the 90mm is MFD- lens length - flange distance and doesn't take the port into account. The difference of 20mm seem like a bit much for a change of 1.4 to 1.5x as a typical macro lens increases magnification fairly rapidly with only small changes to working distance. For example my OM 90mm macro focuses at 1x at 250mm and 2x at 224mm. So I'd expect the MFO-1 plus 100mm to focus a little closer at 1.4x compared to the bare lens if you follow my thinking.

I would need to run proper tests taking magnification into account, but what I measured when the MFO-1 + 100mm was as follows:

100mm minimum focus distance without MFO1: 80 mm
100mm minimum focus distance with MFO1: 40 mm

100mm maximum focus distance without MFO1: infinity
100mm maximum focus distance with MFO1: 230 mm (quite restrictive)

These are rough measurements taken from the front element of the glass to the subject on the Sony A7SIII + 100mm 2.8 macro, on land, using uncropped 4K video mode, not stills

5 hours ago, bghazzal said:

I would need to run proper tests taking magnification into account, but what I measured when the MFO-1 + 100mm was as follows:

100mm minimum focus distance without MFO1: 80 mm
100mm minimum focus distance with MFO1: 40 mm

100mm maximum focus distance without MFO1: infinity
100mm maximum focus distance with MFO1: 230 mm (quite restrictive)

These are rough measurements taken from the front element of the glass to the subject on the Sony A7SIII + 100mm 2.8 macro, on land, using uncropped 4K video mode, not stills

This does not sound good, since distance to subject is greatly reduced by MFO-1 (I do not own MFO-1). Using the 1,4x TC seems to be the much better way to increase magnification to me (at least with Sony 100mm GM; with other lenses TCs might not be possible).

Storytelling says that MFO-1 improves IQ (at least in theory), but I did not see a rigorous demonstration yet (e.g. testchards)...

2 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

This does not sound good, since distance to subject is greatly reduced by MFO-1 (I do not own MFO-1). Using the 1,4x TC seems to be the much better way to increase magnification to me (at least with Sony 100mm GM; with other lenses TCs might not be possible).

Storytelling says that MFO-1 improves IQ (at least in theory), but I did not see a rigorous demonstration yet (e.g. testchards)...

Keep in mind that I was just measuring the minimum distance at which the lens could acquire focus, not the effect on actual magnification.

I actually appreciate having these extra 4 cm of working distance to with, even though light repositioning isn't always easy.

The MFO1's heavy restriction on infinity focus is interesting - I use the MFO-3, which, like the MFO1, requires the lens limiter switches to to be turned off (as well as lens OSS when shooting video), but having the MFO-1 on the bare lens acts like a physical limiter, blocking focus hunting at roughly 23cm from the glass.
It's quite restrictive but I tend to shoot quite close with the 100mm anyway, and this is actually an advantage for AF as Chris wrote above (and there's always the option to flip it off to use the full range).

On IQ, as mentioned, it was really impressive on a lower quality lens like the LX10's zoom lens. Image was sharper, and the number of focus peaking points doubled, probably linked to an increase in contrast. I can't say the results are as impressive on a great lens like the 100mm, and video is not the best for pixel peeping anyway.

Edited August 13Aug 13 by bghazzal

19 minutes ago, bghazzal said:

On IQ, as mentioned, it was really impressive on a lower quality lens like the LX10's zoom lens. Image was sharper, and the number of focus peaking points doubled, probably linked to an increase in contrast. I can't say the results are as impressive on a great lens like the 100mm, and video is not the best for pixel peeping anyway.

You mean MFO-3 (or did you use MFO-1 with LX10)?

I have MFO-3 and this diopter clearly improves IQ by reducing (the rather large) distance to medium size subjects (and decreasing focal length) and hence reducing the detoriating effect of water on IQ (Sony 100mm GM)...

12 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

You mean MFO-3 (or did you use MFO-1 with LX10)?

I have MFO-3 and this diopter clearly improves IQ by reducing (the rather large) distance to medium size subjects (and decreasing focal length) and hence reducing the detoriating effect of water on IQ (Sony 100mm GM)...

No, the MFO1 - the LX10 has a zoom lens, so no need for the MFO3 - I got the MFO1 a couple of weeks before I transitioned to the A7SIII so did a few bonfire dives with the MFO-1 on the LX10, and it was really impressive. Like an AF and IQ update (faster focus acquisition, crisper/sharper image and double the amount of focus peaking points - I was shooting in manual focus with peaking as a reference, so this was really striking - the LX10 was in 60mm equivalent).
I also have the MFO-3 and it's great - for blackwater style video on the A7SIII with the 100mm, I shoot 80% with the MFO-3, switching to the MFO-1 when I need more magnification.

Edited August 13Aug 13 by bghazzal

2 hours ago, bghazzal said:

No, the MFO1 - the LX10 has a zoom lens, so no need for the MFO3 - I got the MFO1 a couple of weeks before I transitioned to the A7SIII so did a few bonfire dives with the MFO-1 on the LX10, and it was really impressive. Like an AF and IQ update (faster focus acquisition, crisper/sharper image and double the amount of focus peaking points - I was shooting in manual focus with peaking as a reference, so this was really striking - the LX10 was in 60mm equivalent).
I also have the MFO-3 and it's great - for blackwater style video on the A7SIII with the 100mm, I shoot 80% with the MFO-3, switching to the MFO-1 when I need more magnification.

Is this at the wider angles available on the LX-10 zoom? As I understand things the MFO lenses are designed to compensate for diffraction problems of shooting through a flat port and this is deterioration of quality steadily getting worse as the angle of view increases. On 105mm macro lenses the effect is fairly minimal but noticeable on 50-60mm lenses (FF equivalent) and getting worse as you zoom out. It would make sense that macro lenses with a wider field would be helped more. Add to that there is less water to image through and things improve on both fronts.

On 8/12/2026 at 2:12 AM, akarnani said:

After enjoying macro a ton with my 28-60 + CMC2, I'm planning to upgrade my macro setup and get the 100mm macro lens to pair with my A1 body. I've seen lots of people love the MFO-3 especially for black water photography so I was going to add that to my setup with a flip adapter. My unknown is whether it's worth it to add an SMC to the setup as well?

It's relevant now because I'd buy a double-flip instead of a single if I would want the SMC. But, if I'll be happy without the SMC then I'll save the $$ and weight of buying a double flip. Any thoughts or advice is appreciated!

You may be interested in this pool test, if you haven't seen it already: https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/2612-sony-100-mm-macro/page/6/#comment-21021

After 9 months of use - the 100mm is a fantastic lens. But I seldom add the 1.4xTC and never the 2.0xTC, the focal length and reach is too long for regular macro subjects.
I would recommend getting the double adapter and the SMC-3.

2 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

Is this at the wider angles available on the LX-10 zoom? As I understand things the MFO lenses are designed to compensate for diffraction problems of shooting through a flat port and this is deterioration of quality steadily getting worse as the angle of view increases. On 105mm macro lenses the effect is fairly minimal but noticeable on 50-60mm lenses (FF equivalent) and getting worse as you zoom out. It would make sense that macro lenses with a wider field would be helped more. Add to that there is less water to image through and things improve on both fronts.

I used it at the lens' 60mm FF equivalent on the LX10, and there was quite an increase in image sharpness compared to the bare flat port.
What also really impressed me is how focus peaking points doubled, this is the first thing I noticed, and how snappy the AF was. I'm not sure how the LX10's rather dreadful AF worked, but I'm guessing this linked to contrast somehow.

I posted this in the other thread at the time, but here is a screen capture a raw clip shot, Lumix LX10 + MFO1 at 60mm equivalent, 4K 30fps (larval long-arm octopus)

Edited August 13Aug 13 by bghazzal

I am using my 90mm with SMC1. Just got back from Lembeh. Would users recommend adding the SMC3 for super macro?

3 hours ago, Terri said:

I am using my 90mm with SMC1. Just got back from Lembeh. Would users recommend adding the SMC3 for super macro?

SMC3 is basically new version of SMC1. Just bit more smaller and lightweight.

18 hours ago, bghazzal said:

I used it at the lens' 60mm FF equivalent on the LX10, and there was quite an increase in image sharpness compared to the bare flat port.
What also really impressed me is how focus peaking points doubled, this is the first thing I noticed, and how snappy the AF was. I'm not sure how the LX10's rather dreadful AF worked, but I'm guessing this linked to contrast somehow.

I posted this in the other thread at the time, but here is a screen capture a raw clip shot, Lumix LX10 + MFO1 at 60mm equivalent, 4K 30fps (larval long-arm octopus)

Nice, the focus peaking shows it is sharper and the AF will work better with a sharper image - it should not be any better than the bare lens in air, but it shows the level of image degradation of a 60mm FF equiv macro lens through a flat port.