Has anyone done a comparision between these 2 setups ?

I see good reviews for the 100mm with MFO-3, but not much on the 28-60 with CMC-2. For larger macro and medium size subjects, how do these setups compare ?

Edited September 15Sep 15 by Ronscuba

See here at the Nauticam port charts:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1caMOa2cyCxucdcAiI8q9UsUu1YEg9ImC/view

#1.: Sony 28-60mm & CMC-2:

max. magnification: 0,7x

Working Distance 83-135mm

#2.: Sony 100mm macro & MFO-3:

Max. Magnification 0.9X

Working Distance 0-1500mm

=> Sony 28-60mm & CMC-2 is the macro that you can achieve, but you get 28mm WA behind planboard w/o CMC-2. Opposed to this you get a dedicated macro lens with the bare Sony 100mm GM, that you can convert to approx. 60mm focal length by adding the MFO-3 (= similar to Sony 28-60mm @ 60mm).

(The announced Marelux wetlens may convert the Sony 100mm into a corrected (= like domeport) 24mm WA lens, but it seems it is not available yet, nor did I see any real tests of IQ yet).

Edited September 15Sep 15 by Architeuthis

5 hours ago, Ronscuba said:

Has anyone done a comparision between these 2 setups ?

I see good reviews for the 100mm with MFO-3, but not much on the 28-60 with CMC-2. For larger macro and medium size subjects, how do these setups compare ?

This comparison is hardly apples to apples. The CMC-2 is designed to magnify or narrow the angle of view while the MFO-3/MV60 are designed to reduce magnification or widen AOV.

The difference with 28-60mm at 60mm is minimum focus distance is around 40cm while the Nauticam MFO-3 and the Marelux MV60 focus all the way to the glass, so 0 cm. The 28-60 at 60mm will focus to infinity, the Marelux will focus to infinity and the Nauticam will focus to 150cm.

A better comparison would be that the Sony 100mm macro will focus to 1.4:1 while the 28/60 at 60mm with CMC-2 willl be more like 1:1.75 on full frame. The CMC-1 has more magnification and will get to about 1:1.2/3.

1 hour ago, Phil Rudin said:

This comparison is hardly apples to apples. The CMC-2 is designed to magnify or narrow the angle of view while the MFO-3/MV60 are designed to reduce magnification or widen AOV.

The difference with 28-60mm at 60mm is minimum focus distance is around 40cm while the Nauticam MFO-3 and the Marelux MV60 focus all the way to the glass, so 0 cm. The 28-60 at 60mm will focus to infinity, the Marelux will focus to infinity and the Nauticam will focus to 150cm.

A better comparison would be that the Sony 100mm macro will focus to 1.4:1 while the 28/60 at 60mm with CMC-2 willl be more like 1:1.75 on full frame. The CMC-1 has more magnification and will get to about 1:1.2/3.

Apologies, I am a newbie and not familiar with the ratio terminology.

Nauticam lists the CMC-1 and 2 as options to be used with the 28-60. I assumed this is to shorten the minimum focus distance at 60 for macro like performance.

I thought the MFO-3 was designed to be used with 100mm macro lenses to create a system to mimic 50-60mm macro lenses because some subjects are too large for 100mm and existing 50-60mm macro lenses autofocus poorly.

I own the 28-60 lens and flat port for use with the WWL for wide angle shooting. It would be nice if the 28-60 could also be used for medium to narrow angle shooting by adding the CMC-2. It is certainly more compact than the 100mm MFO-3 combination. I just do not know how the 2 setups compare optically or in ease of use.

1 minute ago, Ronscuba said:

duplicate post, please delete.

Edited September 15Sep 15 by Ronscuba

58 minutes ago, Ronscuba said:

I own the 28-60 lens and flat port for use with the WWL for wide angle shooting. It would be nice if the 28-60 could also be used for medium to narrow angle shooting by adding the CMC-2

28-60mm alone is already a medium to narrow lens.

I have the 14-42mm (M43 hence 28-84mm) and CMC-2. Adding a CMC-2 you definitely go in medium macro territory.

But don't confuse this configuration with a true macro lens. I made the same mistake naively years ago. I had the WWL and buying a single flip with the CMC-2 was the obvious choice. But if you look at the port chart you notice you have a focus/distance gap. The MFD of the 14-42mm is much greater than the focus range of the CMC-2. And you're therefore forced to be very careful about distances from your subjects.

For example, my 14-42mm has a MFD of 20 cm at 14 and 30 cm at 42mm. For example you have a nudibranch at 20 cm from you. You're at 42mm and you can't focus on it but if you put on the CMC-2 it's not in focus anyway and you have to get closer between 77 and 122 mm. Depending on the subject and situation it could be really annoying.

I also have a 45mm (90 FF) on which I mount the CMC-2 with the flip and for macro it's a completely different sport. Sure you don't do medium subjects but from small to fairly advanced macro you cover all sizes and distances.

Now I don't want to dismiss this configuration that I still use and consider a jack of all trades. But it's not ideal like it was often recommended years ago.

1 hour ago, Davide DB said:

28-60mm alone is already a medium to narrow lens.

I have the 14-42mm (M43 hence 28-84mm) and CMC-2. Adding a CMC-2 you definitely go in medium macro territory.

But don't confuse this configuration with a true macro lens. I made the same mistake naively years ago. I had the WWL and buying a single flip with the CMC-2 was the obvious choice. But if you look at the port chart you notice you have a focus/distance gap. The MFD of the 14-42mm is much greater than the focus range of the CMC-2. And you're therefore forced to be very careful about distances from your subjects.

For example, my 14-42mm has a MFD of 20 cm at 14 and 30 cm at 42mm. For example you have a nudibranch at 20 cm from you. You're at 42mm and you can't focus on it but if you put on the CMC-2 it's not in focus anyway and you have to get closer between 77 and 122 mm. Depending on the subject and situation it could be really annoying.

I also have a 45mm (90 FF) on which I mount the CMC-2 with the flip and for macro it's a completely different sport. Sure you don't do medium subjects but from small to fairly advanced macro you cover all sizes and distances.

Now I don't want to dismiss this configuration that I still use and consider a jack of all trades. But it's not ideal like it was often recommended years ago.

Thank you for taking the time to explain. The examples you listed made it easier for me to understand focus-distance gaps and how it affects shooting.

Edited September 15Sep 15 by Ronscuba

2 hours ago, Ronscuba said:

Apologies, I am a newbie and not familiar with the ratio terminology.

Nauticam lists the CMC-1 and 2 as options to be used with the 28-60. I assumed this is to shorten the minimum focus distance at 60 for macro like performance.

I thought the MFO-3 was designed to be used with 100mm macro lenses to create a system to mimic 50-60mm macro lenses because some subjects are too large for 100mm and existing 50-60mm macro lenses autofocus poorly.

I own the 28-60 lens and flat port for use with the WWL for wide angle shooting. It would be nice if the 28-60 could also be used for medium to narrow angle shooting by adding the CMC-2. It is certainly more compact than the 100mm MFO-3 combination. I just do not know how the 2 setups compare optically or in ease of use.

That description is correct.

I would ask have you ever used lens like the 28-60 with a diopter? You can achieve 0.7x at 83mm , but it only shows a focused image between 83 and 135mm and much outside that range it’s really blurred. It works but it is not the same as using a macro lens. Housings can be hard to aim sometimes and with a true macro you can back up, find the subject and keep focusing as you move in . Basically easier to use .

You can produce nice images with both, but a dedicated macro lens is always going to be sharper.

The macro plus MFO3 gives flexibility to shoot critters from 5-10mm size all the way up to about 300-500mm.

3 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

That description is correct.

I would ask have you ever used lens like the 28-60 with a diopter? You can achieve 0.7x at 83mm , but it only shows a focused image between 83 and 135mm and much outside that range it’s really blurred. It works but it is not the same as using a macro lens. Housings can be hard to aim sometimes and with a true macro you can back up, find the subject and keep focusing as you move in . Basically easier to use .

You can produce nice images with both, but a dedicated macro lens is always going to be sharper.

The macro plus MFO3 gives flexibility to shoot critters from 5-10mm size all the way up to about 300-500mm.

I have not used the 28-60 with a diopter.

Thanks for explaining the differences in a way beginners such as myself can understand.

Phil Rudin mentioned the Marelux MV60, which is similar to MFO-3, can fit to nauticam flip, but allows focusing to infinity (versus 150cm for MFO-3). Although I have tried neither, based on this it is hard to find a reason to chose the MFO-3 over the MV60.

Fred