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.