As per the title, I'm interested in a discussion about the options for rectilinear WA on the Nikon mirrorless platform.

I'm moving from Nikon D850 where I had been shooting 16-35/4 Nikon with the S&S correction filter behind a 230mm Zen glass dome.
I have been a bit dissatisfied with the 16-35/4 optics - yes I've gotten my shots, but they feel "lacking".
I already own the 230mm Zen dome and am willing to haul it on trips.
I'm covered when it comes to FE = RS13 conversion headed for re-conversion to Sony E with a metadapt E to Z.

It appears that there are several options for Nikon mirrorless when it comes to rectilinear...
- Keep F lens situation as is - BUT, optics have always been a bit "soft" - even in the middle of the image
- 24-50 Z lens and WWL-C - BUT, there are image "compromises" when trying to manipulate physics
- 16-30 Z lens and Zen 230mm Dome - BUT, not clear what extension is needed = I've found answers stating: 40,45,50,and 55mm extensions!!!
- 24-70 Z lens and WACP - BUT, anyone want to fund me for the cost of the WACP2???!!! AND, while it seems that 230mm possible, the 180mm is "preferred" (per asterisk on the N120 Z Nauticam port chart) - and extension situation also potentially "different" than port chart as Zen dome vs Nauticam...

I'd love to hear some REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE comparing these options: "I get great pics with the WWL-C" isn't the same as "I've shot both and I like X over Y for these reasons"...

The wet wide lenses are not rectilinear. A great choice is the Laowa AF 12mm F/2.8-F/22 lite Zero-D for Nikon Z. This lens is 122 degrees and has a minimum focus distance of just 14cm, so it can be used in a 180mm dome port. Great lens for splits, accepts 72mm filters.

The WWL-C/ Z24-50 is demonstrably better than the 16-35 solutions. Sharper and a much bigger range as well.

I don't have the WACP setups to try but I have a hard time finding validation that they are superior to the WWL-C. I might consider the more reasonably sized WACP-C as a dry solution vs wet.

Agree with Dave with regards to WWLC/24-50. phenomenal little setup.

@Dave_Hicks WACP is an improvement vs wwlc but whether that improvement is worth the size vs cost...YMMV.

Since you have WWL, the WACP-C wont (imo) be worthwhile. If you were going to do one, the WACP1 would be the more worthwhile upgrade

@MatthewSullivan I own a 230mm Zen dome at present.
I do NOT own any wide angle Nauticam wet lenses, nor the WACP.
Ideally I'd like to buy the least amount of gear switching from D850 to Z8.

2 hours ago, DocTock said:

@MatthewSullivan I own a 230mm Zen dome at present.
I do NOT own any wide angle Nauticam wet lenses, nor the WACP.
Ideally I'd like to buy the least amount of gear switching from D850 to Z8.

sorry, i didnt format my reply well! everything after 'phenomenal little setup' was to Dave

Have you tried de-fishing in post?

Hi @DocTock - very fair questions and ones we all face.

As background, I own and constantly use: WWL, WACP-C, WACP-1, and domes. It comes down to the right tool for the right need and personal taste.

For overall general dives my go-to is the WACP-C/WWL.

Reasons: 130 degree FoV on the wide end, zoom ability, edge-to-edge sharpness, solid corner sharpness specifically, ability to use more open apertures while maintaining sharpness, incredible close-focus capabilities such as focusing on a starfish with the dome almost touching the arm. The WWL is a wet mount lens with the WACP-C being very similar but a dry mount. I typically dive the WACP-C when home simply because I do not need to travel and it is easy to handle on boat dives. The WWL offers basically the same quality in a smaller, easier to pack solution. The WWL is also less of an initial investment in water contact optics.

While the WWL/WACP does produce a slight fisheye effect, I personally prefer that to stretched corners especially in a wide reefscape. Yes, I may on rare occasion de-fish the image slightly in post if the desired outcome warrants this. A rectilinear lens could be more appropriate if doing mainly wreck interiors or subjects that are predominantly defined straight lines.

I use my domes mainly for splits or when I want to use a true fisheye lens (8-15) for ultra wide images. As an example, for my specific dive today I am using my 8-15 with a 2x TC behind a dome for the Goliath aggregation. I find this a bit wider than the WACP-C while allowing me some zoom if needed.

Again, I stress this is all personal experience and personal taste. There is no definitive best solution for all. Others will swear by rectilinear lenses and domes. There are tradeoffs with every solution and I am not championing one over another. We can all dive what we want. I am sharing my experience and what I have seen based on using a variety of options.

Enjoy!

chip

Edited September 20Sep 20 by ChipBPhoto

The z24-50 + wwl-c is a serious little combo that can produce very sharp and contrasty images. Slightly curved at the wide end, but sharp all over. If you want something that is better for shooting the moment you hit the water—wacp-c that is dry mount.

Little bent @24 —130 degrees diagonal FoV

4 hours ago, ChipBPhoto said:

Hi @DocTock - very fair questions and ones we all face.

As background, I own and constantly use: WWL, WACP-C, WACP-1, and domes. It comes down to the right tool for the right need and personal taste.

For overall general dives my go-to is the WACP-C/WWL.

Reasons: 130 degree FoV on the wide end, zoom ability, edge-to-edge sharpness, solid corner sharpness specifically, ability to use more open apertures while maintaining sharpness, incredible close-focus capabilities such as focusing on a starfish with the dome almost touching the arm. The WWL is a wet mount lens with the WACP-C being very similar but a dry mount. I typically dive the WACP-C when home simply because I do not need to travel and it is easy to handle on boat dives. The WWL offers basically the same quality in a smaller, easier to pack solution. The WWL is also less of an initial investment in water contact optics.

While the WWL/WACP does produce a slight fisheye effect, I personally prefer that to stretched corners especially in a wide reefscape. Yes, I may on rare occasion de-fish the image slightly in post if the desired outcome warrants this. A rectilinear lens could be more appropriate if doing mainly wreck interiors or subjects that are predominantly defined straight lines.

I use my domes mainly for splits or when I want to use a true fisheye lens (8-15) for ultra wide images. As an example, for my specific dive today I am using my 8-15 with a 2x TC behind a dome for the Goliath aggregation. I find this a bit wider than the WACP-C while allowing me some zoom if needed.

Again, I stress this is all personal experience and personal taste. There is no definitive best solution for all. Others will swear by rectilinear lenses and domes. There are tradeoffs with every solution and I am not championing one over another. We can all dive what we want. I am sharing my experience and what I have seen based on using a variety of options.

Enjoy!

chip

You didn't mention what you use the WACP-1 for. Or do you not use it much?

7 hours ago, Dave_Hicks said:

You didn't mention what you use the WACP-1 for. Or do you not use it much?

Hey @Dave_Hicks - good question. The WACP-1 is basically the best all around of the Nauticam water contact optics. (You need a crane and a trust fund for the WACP-2) It is a bit sharper than the WWL series or WACP-C and you can open the aperture even wider without sacrificing sharpness. That’s a huge win to gain additional ambient light. (I.e. think f/8-9 instead of needing f/13)

There is also a tremendous increase in the size and dry weight. Dry, the WACP-1 is 10 lbs compared to the WACP-C at 5 lbs. The WWLs are even smaller as you know.

For me personally, the relatively small sharpness difference between the 1 and C or even the WWLs is not worth the increased mass out of the water. Hence the reason my primary is the C, or WWL for travel.

Don’t get me wrong, the WACP-1 is truly a top performer. I have friends that are working pro videographers that swear by it for good reason. For my personal needs I would rather have smaller, lighter rig size.

Edited September 20Sep 20 by ChipBPhoto

58 minutes ago, ChipBPhoto said:

Hey @Dave_Hicks - good question. The WACP-1 is basically the best all around of the Nauticam water contact optics. (You need a crane and a trust fund for the WACP-2) It is a bit sharper than the WWL series or WACP-C and you can open the aperture even wider without sacrificing sharpness. That’s a huge win to gain additional ambient light. (I.e. think f/8-9 instead of needing f/13)

There is also a tremendous increase in the size and dry weight. Dry, the WACP-1 is 10 lbs compared to the WACP-C at 5 lbs. The WWLs are even smaller as you know.

For me personally, the relatively small sharpness difference between the 1 and C or even the WWLs is not worth the increased mass out of the water. Hence the reason my primary is the C, or WWL for travel.

Don’t get me wrong, the WACP-1 is truly a top performer. I have friends that are working pro videographers that swear by it for good reason. For my personal needs I would rather have smaller, lighter rig size.

Agreed. I've watched many others with the WACP-1 or 2 and just have not found them to be worth the trouble. There is so much low hanging fruit in capturing better images that I don't see this incremental step to be of value to me.

Edited September 21Sep 21 by Dave_Hicks

On 9/19/2026 at 12:08 PM, Phil Rudin said:

The wet wide lenses are not rectilinear. A great choice is the Laowa AF 12mm F/2.8-F/22 lite Zero-D for Nikon Z. This lens is 122 degrees and has a minimum focus distance of just 14cm, so it can be used in a 180mm dome port. Great lens for splits, accepts 72mm filters.

@Phil Rudin
In your experience:
Would the Laowa work "better" behind a 230mm dome?
What have you found extension length to best be? 40mm or 50mm?

Sounding like a great replacement for the Sigma 15 FE that I just sold off as it requires external motor...

Edited September 22Sep 22 by DocTock

The Laowa AF 12mm will work in 140, 180 and 230mm dome ports and yes best results will be with the 230mm dome. This is also the case with fisheye lenses but many photographers like the much smaller 100/140mm setups.

I shoot Sony full frame cameras in Marelux housings primarily with the 140mm or 230mm domes. The Marelux port charts recommend the 30mm extension for the Laowa 12mm using the 140 and 230mm dome ports while the 180mm takes the 20mm extension. I would recommend this lens over the Laowa 10mm which is more well suited to video work. I shoot the Marelux 210 acrylic and 230 optical glass along with the 12 inch Matty Smith for splits. I use the 140mm whenI travel without the large 230mm port.

The Laowa 12mm is one of several lenses not supported by many other housing brands so you will need to work out extension lengths for your housing brand.