I'm upgrading my underwater system from a Sony A7R IV to the new A7R VI and am considering making a fairly significant change to my wide-angle setup at the same time.

My current A7R IV system uses the Sony 16-35mm behind the Nauticam N100 180mm Optical Glass Wide Angle Port.

For the new system, I'm considering the Sony FE 28-60mm f/4-5.6 behind the Nauticam N100 Flat Port 45, with the M67 Bayonet Mount Converter II and WWL-1B wet wide-angle lens.

This seems like a very different optical approach from the 16-35/180mm dome combination I've been using, so I'd really like to hear from anyone who has experience with the 28-60 + WWL-1B on a full-frame Sony system.

In particular, how does the image quality compare with a good rectilinear wide-angle lens behind a dome, especially toward the corners? How useful is the 28-60mm zoom range with the WWL-1B, and how practical is removing and reinstalling the WWL-1B during a dive?

For anyone who has moved from a conventional wide-angle/dome setup to the WWL-1B, did you find it to be an upgrade, a tradeoff, or simply a different tool?

Thanks — I'd really appreciate hearing about firsthand experience before I finalize the new system.

The WWL-1B and most wet lenses in general use 28mm at the widest 130 degree FOV, end with the longest zooming being the Sony FE 28-70mm which zooms to 59 degrees. I reviewed WWL-1B in UWPMAG.com issue #120 and the original WWL-1 before the Sony FE 28-60mm existed in issue #114 if you care to lookup the benefits V. Sony FE 16-35mm lenses that are 107 to 63 degree and rectilinear.

If you want to save some money skip WWL and get WACP-C. You will end up there anyway... So very much sharper on both ends.

On 9/25/2026 at 8:43 PM, Bobdori82 said:

I'm upgrading my underwater system from a Sony A7R IV to the new A7R VI and am considering making a fairly significant change to my wide-angle setup at the same time.

My current A7R IV system uses the Sony 16-35mm behind the Nauticam N100 180mm Optical Glass Wide Angle Port.

For the new system, I'm considering the Sony FE 28-60mm f/4-5.6 behind the Nauticam N100 Flat Port 45, with the M67 Bayonet Mount Converter II and WWL-1B wet wide-angle lens.

This seems like a very different optical approach from the 16-35/180mm dome combination I've been using, so I'd really like to hear from anyone who has experience with the 28-60 + WWL-1B on a full-frame Sony system.

In particular, how does the image quality compare with a good rectilinear wide-angle lens behind a dome, especially toward the corners? How useful is the 28-60mm zoom range with the WWL-1B, and how practical is removing and reinstalling the WWL-1B during a dive?

For anyone who has moved from a conventional wide-angle/dome setup to the WWL-1B, did you find it to be an upgrade, a tradeoff, or simply a different tool?

Thanks — I'd really appreciate hearing about firsthand experience before I finalize the new system.

It's a fairly wide open question as the performance of 16-35 lenses in small domes varies quite widely particularly in the corners, some of the newer close focusing lenses perform much better than the older versions. In general the 16-35 lenses might be sharper in the middle and the wet optics better in the corners and the wet optics also perform better at wider F stops. If you search you will find some tests photos from various lenses in these forums. Here is one example:

The other consideration is that the WWL style optics are slightly wider about the same horizontal field as as a 13-14mm rectilinear and have some mild barrel distortion. they also will focus right down the the dome glass something that not all rectilinears can do. A final consideration is the wet optic is physically smaller making it more usable for getting in closer for CFWA type shots.

regarding removing a WWL I've seen split opinions, a few say no problem, others say they don't want to deal with removing and stowing such a large lump of glass UW.

On 9/25/2026 at 10:43 PM, Bobdori82 said:

I'm upgrading my underwater system from a Sony A7R IV to the new A7R VI and am considering making a fairly significant change to my wide-angle setup at the same time.

My current A7R IV system uses the Sony 16-35mm behind the Nauticam N100 180mm Optical Glass Wide Angle Port.

For the new system, I'm considering the Sony FE 28-60mm f/4-5.6 behind the Nauticam N100 Flat Port 45, with the M67 Bayonet Mount Converter II and WWL-1B wet wide-angle lens.

This seems like a very different optical approach from the 16-35/180mm dome combination I've been using, so I'd really like to hear from anyone who has experience with the 28-60 + WWL-1B on a full-frame Sony system.

In particular, how does the image quality compare with a good rectilinear wide-angle lens behind a dome, especially toward the corners? How useful is the 28-60mm zoom range with the WWL-1B, and how practical is removing and reinstalling the WWL-1B during a dive?

For anyone who has moved from a conventional wide-angle/dome setup to the WWL-1B, did you find it to be an upgrade, a tradeoff, or simply a different tool?

Thanks — I'd really appreciate hearing about firsthand experience before I finalize the new system.

Full disclosure. Haven't used the Sony system, but shoot full frame Nikon. Should be the "same" though. It will be much better optically inme than any wide rectilinear that comes close to its FoV behind a domeport on full frame. It is very easy to install/remove a wwl under water. Nothing I recommend, but I have even held the wwl in hand and shot with the flat port on occasion, get some kind of holder if you see yourself in that situation often. Good luck!

Edited October 14Oct 14 by Christian K

I’m using the 16–35mm GM II behind the 180mm dome port and am also considering switching. The corners only become satisfactory at around f/11.

2 hours ago, Assist91 said:

I’m using the 16–35mm GM II behind the 180mm dome port and am also considering switching. The corners only become satisfactory at around f/11.

I have not used Sony 16-35mm GM II behind my Zen DP170 (similar to Nauticam 180, same radius of curvature, but 10mm less diameter), but several reported (also here) that this lens does not perform well UW and requires at least a 230mm domeport (Seacam, however, told me that this lens performs perfect behind their PPO, that is a different concept)...

I have Tamron 17-28mm/DP170, that has ben reported to perform much better behind domeports, and I am pretty satisfied. Did not perform the testing by myself, but see e.g. here: https://interceptor121.com/2024/04/13/tamron-17-28-f2-8-for-underwater-photography-review/

Bad performance of Sony 16-35mm GMII/180mm domeport alone is not a good argument to switch to WACP/WWL, unless one prefers the different look of the water contact optics...

Wolfgang

Edited October 26Oct 26 by Architeuthis

It’s not just about sharpness for me, but also the CFWA capability…

Edited October 26Oct 26 by Assist91

1 hour ago, Architeuthis said:

I have not used Sony 16-35mm GM II behind my Zen DP170 (similar to Nauticam 180, same radius of curvature, but 10mm less diameter), but several reported (also here) that this lens does not perform well UW and requires at least a 230mm domeport (Seacam, however, told me that this lens performs perfect behind their PPO, that is a different concept)...

I have Tamron 17-28mm/DP170, that has ben reported to perform much better behind domeports, and I am pretty satisfied. Did not perform the testing by myself, but see e.g. here: https://interceptor121.com/2024/04/13/tamron-17-28-f2-8-for-underwater-photography-review/

Bad performance of Sony 16-35mm GMII/180mm domeport alone is not a good argument to switch to WACP/WWL, unless one prefers the different look of the water contact optics...

Wolfgang

Now that you say it, I see that Massimo also made a review about the Sony 16-35mm GMII lens and says that it is at least as good behind 180mm dome compared to the Tamron...😄

(There are other reviews that say 230mm is the minimum for this lens and even then perfomance is suboptimal)

Nevertheless, I find performance of Tamron 17-28mm (and also of Sony 20-70mm f/4) behind DP170 really good. For me personally, however, 20mm is enough of rectilinear WA and generally, especially for wider angles, I prefer the water contact optics/fisheye look...

On 9/25/2026 at 10:43 PM, Bobdori82 said:

I'm upgrading my underwater system from a Sony A7R IV to the new A7R VI and am considering making a fairly significant change to my wide-angle setup at the same time.

My current A7R IV system uses the Sony 16-35mm behind the Nauticam N100 180mm Optical Glass Wide Angle Port.

For the new system, I'm considering the Sony FE 28-60mm f/4-5.6 behind the Nauticam N100 Flat Port 45, with the M67 Bayonet Mount Converter II and WWL-1B wet wide-angle lens.

This seems like a very different optical approach from the 16-35/180mm dome combination I've been using, so I'd really like to hear from anyone who has experience with the 28-60 + WWL-1B on a full-frame Sony system.

In particular, how does the image quality compare with a good rectilinear wide-angle lens behind a dome, especially toward the corners? How useful is the 28-60mm zoom range with the WWL-1B, and how practical is removing and reinstalling the WWL-1B during a dive?

For anyone who has moved from a conventional wide-angle/dome setup to the WWL-1B, did you find it to be an upgrade, a tradeoff, or simply a different tool?

Thanks — I'd really appreciate hearing about firsthand experience before I finalize the new system.

I do not use Sony 16-35mm, but Tamron 17-28mm behind Zen DP170 (similar to Nauticam 180) on A7R5. Also Sony 20-70mm f/4. Before I was using Panasonic 7-14mm, Zuiko 8-25mm, Zuiko 12-40mm Pro and Zuiko 8-19mm on MFT cameras, also behind Zen DP170. Center sharpness is better compared to WWL/WACP, on par with a 180° diagonal fisheye lens (I use(d) Canon 8-15mm on both systems).

I was, however, never happy with ultra rectilinear WA. With Sony FF, the widest I like is 20mm. My reservations are not because of corner sharpness (in many of my WA photos, but not all, corner sharpness is not really important), but it is the way how objects are stretched out that are close to the corners.

This unnatural stretching does not occur with WWL/WACP and fisheye lenses. There the objects close to the corners are compressed instead of stretched. In case this compression is too much for my taste (as sometimes occurs, when using 180° diagonal fisheye), I can easily "defish" the photo partially in LRc (100% is much too much).

That said, I personally prefer an adapted Canon 8-15mm with 2x Sony TC with Nauticam 140mm domeport on the Sony FF. IQ is comparable to the WACP-C/Sony 28-60mm (that I also own), but instead of 130° maximum angle of view diagonal, I have 180° with this setup. Both Canon 8-15mm/2xTC and WACP-C offer good close-up, almost macro, and zoom-in capabilities.

=> l second RomiK that it is better to bite the bullet and go for WACP-C instead of WWL-1, since WACP-C is a dry lens and you avoid the drapped air bubble problem (that seems to a problem when snorkeling with whalesharks, dolphins etc., what is not uncommon in these days)

Edited October 26Oct 26 by Architeuthis

The thing to remember with water contact optics like WACP is that they are not hugely wider than a 16-35 , the WACP 130 deg diagonal suggests it’s like a 10mm rectilinear, however the horizontal width of the frame is around that of a 13-14mm rectilinear lens.

The water contact lenses and fisheyes both feature barrel distortion which is much stronger in the fisheye. What this means is that image scale varies across the frame, with objects in the centre rendered larger and more prominent with edges of frame rendering smaller and apparently receding. This draws attention to the subject if it’s placed in the central region.

Rectilinear lenses feature constant image scale, but nearby objects appear more prominent (larger) and this becomes more apparent the wider the lens. This can cause weird distortion to a diver for example reaching forward that appears to have giant hands as they are closer to camera. Not super apparent at 16mm, more so at 14mm and on to 10mm where it is very apparent.

Yes, trapped air bubbles were one of the main reasons I was considering a dry solution. Of course, if you quickly remove and reattach the lens, you can get around this problem. But with the 180 mm dome port, I really appreciate being able to jump into the water and start shooting straight away.

For example, we’ve booked a trip to Baja California for the sardine run. When snorkeling, and especially when there might also be some action above the water, the dry solution will certainly have an advantage.

I’ll do some more testing on my next trip to Egypt in December to get a better idea of the sharpness.

The WACP-C is certainly a significant investment, both in terms of size and weight and, of course, cost. I’d need to rent the Canon fisheye first and see how well the autofocus performs on my A7C II.

Edited October 27Oct 27 by Assist91

1 hour ago, Chris Ross said:

The thing to remember with water contact optics like WACP is that they are not hugely wider than a 16-35 ,

I beg to differ. In my experience the difference is huge underwater and you cant really go by numbers. With WACP you can do sunbursts all of a sudden, almost anywhere, while with 16-35... not so much if at all.

Because of a fisheye effect of WACP you get much more information and coverage in corners and areas leading to corners while with rectilinear lens - imagine that projection circle defined by horizontal FOV will just get stretched out to corners. Anyway to visualize what I mean I let AI engine to apply rectilinear adjustment on my WACP-C image and apply 16mm diagonal FOV. And no the argument "just step away" wont work, the sun would go elsewhere.

27 minutes ago, Assist91 said:

For example, we’ve booked a trip to Baja California for the sardine run. When snorkeling, and especially when there might also be some action above the water, the dry solution will certainly have an advantage.

Don't forget to book flight through Mexico City... you do not want to pay taxes on your camera in Cabo. While in Cozumel and maybe Cancun there seem to be awakening Cabo is still brutal. Friend of mine paid USD500 on his nauticam setup.

Thanks. I think our dive center is arranging the travel via the USA…

5 minutes ago, Assist91 said:

Thanks. I think our dive center is arranging the travel via the USA…

one thing worth to try if you absolutely must come through Cabo - have your camera in housing with port while going through customs (still concealed in regular travel luggage, they may not pick you). The thought behind this stems from various statements of Cozumel officials, such as they did not consider housing being accessory because it was transported separately and therefore would be resold in Mexico. Strange thinking I know but there is some logic to it. So having it altogether as an 'underwater camera' and be vigilant may have some tooth. Off course they are not stupid and are using cellphones to check resale values these days but you know - fight stupid rules with stupid arguments may bring results... good luck.

Edited October 27Oct 27 by RomiK

Thanks!

1 hour ago, RomiK said:

I beg to differ. In my experience the difference is huge underwater and you cant really go by numbers. With WACP you can do sunbursts all of a sudden, almost anywhere, while with 16-35... not so much if at all.

Because of a fisheye effect of WACP you get much more information and coverage in corners and areas leading to corners while with rectilinear lens - imagine that projection circle defined by horizontal FOV will just get stretched out to corners. Anyway to visualize what I mean I let AI engine to apply rectilinear adjustment on my WACP-C image and apply 16mm diagonal FOV. And no the argument "just step away" wont work, the sun would go elsewhere.

Well yes for that particular use, but if you are framing big animals it's a different story, you aren't getting close to fisheye wide, it's still better no doubt, but the advantage over rectilinears in a dome is more than just the width of the frame, the barrel distortion gives a bit of fisheye effect and you don't need to stop down so much to have decent corners, plus a big benefit is it focuses down to the glass, while retaining a good percentage of the reach of the 16-35.

The thing is, even just 2 mm wider can make quite a big difference. I sometimes find it difficult with 16 mm to get close enough to the subject for the strobes to light it nicely while still fitting everything into the frame… Maybe I’ll just rent a WACP-C to compare. I already have the 28-60 mm.

54 minutes ago, Assist91 said:

The thing is, even just 2 mm wider can make quite a big difference. I sometimes find it difficult with 16 mm to get close enough to the subject for the strobes to light it nicely while still fitting everything into the frame… Maybe I’ll just rent a WACP-C to compare. I already have the 28-60 mm.

I don't doubt it will be an improvement over a 16-35 - it's just not a fisheye. Los of people are happily shooting with them.