Hi everyone,

I’m looking for some advice from experienced Sony underwater photographers.

I recently returned from a diving trip to Palau, where I was shooting with a Sony A1 II in a Marelux housing, using a fisheye lens.

While the fisheye worked beautifully for close encounters and large schools of fish, I found it quite limiting when photographing sharks, especially at places like Blue Corner, where they often stayed a few meters away.

The sharks appeared too small in the frame, and I felt I was missing shots that a rectilinear wide-angle lens could have captured much better.

I currently own the Sony 12–24mm F4 G, which has served me well for underwater photography.

However, with Sony’s new dedicated FE 8–14mm F3.5 Fisheye G arriving soon, I’ve decided to add it to my setup. I feel that keeping the 12–24mm may no longer make much sense, since the new fisheye will cover most of my close-focus wide-angle needs.

I’m now considering replacing the 12–24mm with a more versatile rectilinear zoom, mainly for sharks, rays, and other large marine animals that don’t always come close enough.

I’m considering lenses such as the Sony 16–35mm F4 PZ, but I’m open to other suggestions.

My setup includes a Sony A1 II, Marelux housing, and both 140mm and 230mm dome ports.

My question is: Which Sony rectilinear wide-angle lens would you recommend for this type of underwater photography, based on actual diving experience?

I’m particularly interested in real-world image quality, corner sharpness, autofocus performance, and the ability to photograph sharks at moderate distances.

My next major diving trip will be to the Galápagos, so I’d really like to get this setup right.

You don't need a very wide lens unless the sharks are large and/or very close. And of course you can get get head shots if your lens is too narrow for the whole animal. I have nice shots of Galapagos whalers from Lord Howe with a 60mm micro and flat port... these top out at about 1.5m but they can come close.

Of course I would not recommend this setup, so I suggest the Sony 20-70 with 180 dome would be a good choice for small to medium size sharks, plus let you get good fish shots and even some close-ups as well.

For pure shark photos I would use my 16-25 with either 140 or 180 dome. No wider unless they are big and close perhaps.

How about something between a fisheye and a rectilinear with zoom versatility? WWL-1/WACP-C/WACP.

All of them have excellent optic quality (many topics on this forum on them)

The WWl-1/wACP-c/wacp is not rectilinear also is it will help me to shoot sharks 2-4 metres from my?

3 hours ago, dentrock said:

You don't need a very wide lens unless the sharks are large and/or very close. And of course you can get get head shots if your lens is too narrow for the whole animal. I have nice shots of Galapagos whalers from Lord Howe with a 60mm micro and flat port... these top out at about 1.5m but they can come close.

Of course I would not recommend this setup, so I suggest the Sony 20-70 with 180 dome would be a good choice for small to medium size sharks, plus let you get good fish shots and even some close-ups as well.

For pure shark photos I would use my 16-25 with either 140 or 180 dome. No wider unless they are big and close perhaps.

do you have experience with the sony 20-70 ?

I have good experience with the Sony 20-70mm/Zen DP170 (A7R5). I had this setup in Providencia (Carribean) for photographing Carribean reef sharks. The sharks there are not shy. Also the Tamron 17-28mm works very well behind the DP170, but I did not use it there. See here some photos from this trip:

I also had WACP-C/Sony 28-60mm and Canon 8-15mm/Nauticam 140mm domeport on this trip with me. Canon 8 - 15mm has very good IQ, but is too wide in most cases. The range of WACP-C/28-60mm is good, butit is recognizeably softer compared to the Sony 20-70mm/DP170 combo (that is very sharp and, hence, excellent).

Today I would use the Canon 8-15mm/Sony 2x TC/Nauticam 140mm domeport combo that has similar IQ compared to WACP-C/28-60mm, but allows to zoom out to 180° diagonal (WACP-C is restricted to 130° to its maximum). It is now my standard and only WA setup, when air travelling as it covers the entire range I need (very similar range and "macro" capabilities compared to WACP-C, but allows to zoom out to 180° diagonal). See example images for Canon 8-15mm/Sony 2x TC/Nauticam 140mm domeport, but also from other photographers with other setups, here:

Generally, the possibility to zoom in a lot does not help, when the sharks are behaving naturally and shy (=unbaited/feeded), unless the waters are crystal clear...

Wolfgang

P.S.: When money no object, the Seacam PPO/Sony 16-35mm GMII combo seems to me the top setup for such purpose (but I have zero experience with it)...🙂

Edited October 23Oct 23 by Architeuthis

I've shot at Blue Corner with the 16-35 PZ. It's fine, I'd buy it again, but to be honest I wanted more reach - even if with more reach, you get more water and less light, so bluer photos that aren't necessarily keepers.

See also my feedback on this lens with other shots here: https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/3901-decision-made/#comment-28155

Also consider the Sigma 20-200mm, phil posted great test pictures with it https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/3901-decision-made/#comment-28242

Both photos below were taken with the 16-35 PZ at 35mm, 1/200, f/5.6, iso 2500, uncropped, at Blue Corner. Most shots ended up being like the first one - on the second one the sharks got closer for a short time only.

About the sony 16-35pz lens this what i thought. This way i asked about the sony 20-70 f4.

The combo of the canon fisheye with 2x sony tc That’s a very interesting setup! I’m currently using the Canon 8–15mm with a Sigma MC-11 adapter on my Sony A1 II.

Could you explain exactly how you’re using the Sony 2× teleconverter with the Canon fisheye? Which adapters are involved, and does autofocus still work reliably?

I’m particularly interested because I recently photographed sharks in Palau and found the fisheye too wide when they were a few meters away. Is it work the same as the WACP? This will be great less weight when travelling.

55 minutes ago, Johan said:

I've shot at Blue Corner with the 16-35 PZ. It's fine, I'd buy it again, but to be honest I wanted more reach - even if with more reach, you get more water and less light, so bluer photos that aren't necessarily keepers.

See also my feedback on this lens with other shots here: https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/3901-decision-made/#comment-28155

Also consider the Sigma 20-200mm, phil posted great test pictures with it https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/3901-decision-made/#comment-28242

Both photos below were taken with the 16-35 PZ at 35mm, 1/200, f/5.6, iso 2500, uncropped, at Blue Corner. Most shots ended up being like the first one - on the second one the sharks got closer for a short time only.

I had the same problem this is way i asked about the sony 20-70

3 hours ago, Alon Lyvnat said:

The combo of the canon fisheye with 2x sony tc That’s a very interesting setup! I’m currently using the Canon 8–15mm with a Sigma MC-11 adapter on my Sony A1 II.

Could you explain exactly how you’re using the Sony 2× teleconverter with the Canon fisheye? Which adapters are involved, and does autofocus still

Try these threads to start.

Here

Here

Theres plenty more where the Canon adapted to Sony is discussed.

I'm a fan of the Sony 28-60mm lens over their 28-70mm - I shoot the 28-60mm behind the Nauticam FCP-1 & I like the versatility of the lens

I'm off to Yap & Palau in February & will pack this lens for my trip..

15 hours ago, Alon Lyvnat said:

do you have experience with the sony 20-70 ?

Yes. That's why I suggested it...

To add to my comments, I suggest you go back to 1st principles and review loads of shark photos (your own and others) and work out which ones engage you (meaning which ones do you come back to / look at again and again). There is an awful lot of wide angle stuff published which is frankly, dull. Which do you want to emulate?

Then figure what lens you would need to take your favourite shark photos, with the least amount of cropping.

It occurs to me the 20-70 could be perfect for the Galapagos, since it would be good for the lizards, all the sharks, tortoises, most fish and so on. Potentially good on land too. A lightweight rig should also help. But each to their own.

14 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

Generally, the possibility to zoom in a lot does not help, when the sharks are behaving naturally and shy (=unbaited/feeded), unless the waters are crystal clear...

Well, yes, but then the alternative is no photos. But if you CAN get close in poor viz, a close-up photo could have way more impact than an attempt to 'get the whole animal in'. Think 'snout, eyes and teeth'!

Nobody seems to mention this now, but I used to teach that you should try to limit subject distance to 1/5th of the viz... so 3m viz = 60 cm max distance...

Of course, just another rule that can be broken, but still something to consider.

I'm also shooting the A1 II underwater and have gone pretty far down the rabbit hole with wide-angle optics. I've used the 16–35mm GM, WWL-1 and WACP-2, and recently added a WACP-1B.

I've dived Galápagos and shot the 16–35mm GM behind a 180mm dome on that trip. Honestly, I found the range more than sufficient, including for sharks that weren't particularly close.

These days I've mostly moved toward water-contact optics, although I wouldn't dream of dragging my WACP-2 around many of the Galápagos dive sites. The currents can be challenging enough without that monster!

I'd also seriously consider the 28–60mm behind a WWL-1 or WACP-1B.

And while getting a nice shot of an individual hammerhead is great, the real magic of Galápagos is seeing them in enormous schools. That's where having a really wide field of view pays off. Same goes for whale sharks if they decide to grace you with their presence!

I don't think you can go wrong with the 16–35mm, but if I were heading back today, I'd probably be leaning toward the 28–60mm with a water-contact optic. Just another option worth considering!

On 10/23/2026 at 10:07 AM, Alon Lyvnat said:

The WWl-1/wACP-c/wacp is not rectilinear also is it will help me to shoot sharks 2-4 metres from my?

I second opinions on 20-70 (excellent lens for where you expect unexpected) but not for Galapagos. Also WWL-1 good overall but not for Galapagos. I should know as I had WWL-1 there - only to miss on a lot of action when clearing bubbles after the drop.

Galapagos encounters will be close distance with need to go ultrawide - seals, jacks bowls, iguanas and whale shark if you get lucky - and medium distance for eagle rays, hammers and alike.

You will need great AF so anything adapted wont work. 16-35 may be too long and 12-24 too short. That leaves you with the only best Galapagos option good for travel which on Sony N100 is WACP-C with 28-60.

The downside is that once you put it on it will never leave your rig and so you may want to start looking for second home for other lenses and ports you acquired up until this point 🤣

Edit: I now see that you are on Marelux housing. Not sure where camera sits in that housing but Nauticam wants 30mm extension port for WACP-C. Marelux has this 25mm adapter and 17mm. No idea if it would work but chatgpt suggests 17mm from some research. No idea.

https://www.marelux.co/products/nauticam-n100-to-marelux-extension-ring-20

Marelux

Nauticam N100 Port to Marelux Housing Adapter Ring 17

Nauticam N100 Port to Marelux Housing Adapter Ring 17

Edited October 25Oct 25 by RomiK

Great frames, @RomiK !

For years my go-to is the WACP-C as well. Seems that is perfect for the hero pics with an adapted 8-15 for the ultra-wide school images.

Not a SONY-shooter but having used and use many similar/identical solutions in Nikon-flavor, I'd agree with some of the previous posters that Nauticam water contact optics are close to optimal for many shark situations, short of friendly whale sharks, baited tigers. They do produce some barrel distortion, more pronounced at the wide end, but do offer full zoom through and 130-70 degrees of FoV. A 14-30 will give 114-72 degrees on a full frame and struggle to produce overall sharpness even behind a large dome.

Wide end 130 degrees FoV with WWL-C

On 10/22/2026 at 11:41 PM, Alon Lyvnat said:

Hi everyone,

I’m looking for some advice from experienced Sony underwater photographers.

I recently returned from a diving trip to Palau, where I was shooting with a Sony A1 II in a Marelux housing, using a fisheye lens.

While the fisheye worked beautifully for close encounters and large schools of fish, I found it quite limiting when photographing sharks, especially at places like Blue Corner, where they often stayed a few meters away.

The sharks appeared too small in the frame, and I felt I was missing shots that a rectilinear wide-angle lens could have captured much better.

I currently own the Sony 12–24mm F4 G, which has served me well for underwater photography.

However, with Sony’s new dedicated FE 8–14mm F3.5 Fisheye G arriving soon, I’ve decided to add it to my setup. I feel that keeping the 12–24mm may no longer make much sense, since the new fisheye will cover most of my close-focus wide-angle needs.

I’m now considering replacing the 12–24mm with a more versatile rectilinear zoom, mainly for sharks, rays, and other large marine animals that don’t always come close enough.

I’m considering lenses such as the Sony 16–35mm F4 PZ, but I’m open to other suggestions.

My setup includes a Sony A1 II, Marelux housing, and both 140mm and 230mm dome ports.

My question is: Which Sony rectilinear wide-angle lens would you recommend for this type of underwater photography, based on actual diving experience?

I’m particularly interested in real-world image quality, corner sharpness, autofocus performance, and the ability to photograph sharks at moderate distances.

My next major diving trip will be to the Galápagos, so I’d really like to get this setup right.

Hi Alon,

Without reservation I am sure that I have used and/or reviewed more wide lenses for Sony full frame cameras than most if not all on this site including many using Sony A1, A1 II and all the A7R cameras including the current A7R VI I am using. With all of the wide rectilinear lenses I have tested for over more than a decade it has become clear that lenses with a minimum focus distance under 20cm alway outperform regardless of port size. For example the Laowa 12mm F/2.8 (14cm minimum focus) in a 140mm dome out performs or is equal to lenses like the two Sony 12 to 24mm's that focus to 28cm in a 230 dome port.

You may also want to consider that many after market lenses preform just as well as the Sony lenses and should be considered during your lens quest. You can find my lens reviews by going to uwpmag.com and drop my name Phil Rudin into the back issues search engine.

If you intend to look at wet-wide lenses for your Marelux housing you should consider looking at the Marelux Aquiata 135D which is a dry (direct) mount lens (no bubble issues). The 135D has better IQ than the WACP-C, is slightly lighter, does not require an adapter like the Marelux N100 to MX 17mm, has a slightly wider 135 degree AOV and mounts directly to your housing using the Sony FE 28 to 60mm lens that is so popular. You may also want to consider that the 135D cost $700.00 less than the WACP-C and that Nauticam folks should be the ones considering buying a $200.00 Marelux to Nauticam adapter for this lens.

Now that I have raised some eyebrows let me also say that it is urban legion that the 28 to 60 has superior IQ to the Sony FE 28 to 70mm. In fact the new 28-70 released with the Sony A7 V has better AF, zooms much more smoothly (28-60 sucks in this regard), has better corners and is every bit as sharp as the current 28-60. Even the ten plus year old 28-70 has IQ that would not allow you to see a difference using a wet wide lens. The 28 to 70 and 28mm F/2 were used for several years with wet wide lenses before the 28-60 was even released with few IQ complaints.

The bottom line is simply because a Sony lens cost more does not necessarily make it a better choice for underwater use. In several cases less expensive Sony lenses like the 16mm to 25mm F/2.8 G will out preform the GM lenses simple because of the 18cm minimum focus distance V. 25 to 28cm.

Edited October 25Oct 25 by Phil Rudin

That's a very good looking lens! What adapter/extension would it need on a Nauticam Sony housing?

They have a Marelux to N120 20mm coming. MX to NA N100 not yet announced.

If the extension needed was 55mm or longer the existing 35.5 n100-n120 adapter could be used. That seems like a lot of extension however.

Marelux seems to be cooking up some very interesting stuff lately.

To use WACP-1 on a Marelux housing I use a 20mm NA to MX adapter. So 20mm replaces the 35.5 needed on NA which puts the camera about 15.5 or more like 17mm further back into the housing.

11 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

If you intend to look at wet-wide lenses for your Marelux housing you should consider looking at the Marelux Aquiata 135D which is a dry (direct) mount lens (no bubble issues). The 135D has better IQ than the WACP-C, is slightly lighter, does not require an adapter like the Marelux N100 to MX 17mm, has a slightly wider 135 degree AOV and mounts directly to your housing using the Sony FE 28 to 60mm lens that is so popular. You may also want to consider that the 135D cost $700.00 less than the WACP-C and that Nauticam folks should be the ones considering buying a $200.00 Marelux to Nauticam adapter for this lens.

Are there more resilient tests existing that demonstrate the superior IQ of the Marelux 135D over WACP-C?

11 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

Now that I have raised some eyebrows let me also say that it is urban legion that the 28 to 60 has superior IQ to the Sony FE 28 to 70mm. In fact the new 28-70 released with the Sony A7 V has better AF, zooms much more smoothly (28-60 sucks in this regard), has better corners and is every bit as sharp as the current 28-60. Even the ten plus year old 28-70 has IQ that would not allow you to see a difference using a wet wide lens. The 28 to 70 and 28mm F/2 were used for several years with wet wide lenses before the 28-60 was even released with few IQ complaints.

It may be that UW, behind water contact optics, the IQ of the Sony 28-60mm and 28-70mm lenses is not different. Over the water, both 28-70mm lenses, are clearly inferior and pretty soft. See here, for examle:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1759&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=1525&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

There is no difference, BTW, in the optical design between Sony FE 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS and the newer "II" version. The difference is mostly in AF mechanism and performance...

Edited October 26Oct 26 by Architeuthis

12 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

Hi Alon,

Without reservation I am sure that I have used and/or reviewed more wide lenses for Sony full frame cameras than most if not all on this site including many using Sony A1, A1 II and all the A7R cameras including the current A7R VI I am using. With all of the wide rectilinear lenses I have tested for over more than a decade it has become clear that lenses with a minimum focus distance under 20cm alway outperform regardless of port size. For example the Laowa 12mm F/2.8 (14cm minimum focus) in a 140mm dome out performs or is equal to lenses like the two Sony 12 to 24mm's that focus to 28cm in a 230 dome port.

You may also want to consider that many after market lenses preform just as well as the Sony lenses and should be considered during your lens quest. You can find my lens reviews by going to uwpmag.com and drop my name Phil Rudin into the back issues search engine.

If you intend to look at wet-wide lenses for your Marelux housing you should consider looking at the Marelux Aquiata 135D which is a dry (direct) mount lens (no bubble issues). The 135D has better IQ than the WACP-C, is slightly lighter, does not require an adapter like the Marelux N100 to MX 17mm, has a slightly wider 135 degree AOV and mounts directly to your housing using the Sony FE 28 to 60mm lens that is so popular. You may also want to consider that the 135D cost $700.00 less than the WACP-C and that Nauticam folks should be the ones considering buying a $200.00 Marelux to Nauticam adapter for this lens.

Now that I have raised some eyebrows let me also say that it is urban legion that the 28 to 60 has superior IQ to the Sony FE 28 to 70mm. In fact the new 28-70 released with the Sony A7 V has better AF, zooms much more smoothly (28-60 sucks in this regard), has better corners and is every bit as sharp as the current 28-60. Even the ten plus year old 28-70 has IQ that would not allow you to see a difference using a wet wide lens. The 28 to 70 and 28mm F/2 were used for several years with wet wide lenses before the 28-60 was even released with few IQ complaints.

The bottom line is simply because a Sony lens cost more does not necessarily make it a better choice for underwater use. In several cases less expensive Sony lenses like the 16mm to 25mm F/2.8 G will out preform the GM lenses simple because of the 18cm minimum focus distance V. 25 to 28cm.

What Nikon-lens is recommended for the 135D? The extra 5 degrees makes it an interesting alternative inmo. Does it need a converter on a Nauticam N120 ports? Cheers.

1 hour ago, Architeuthis said:

Over the water, both 28-70mm lenses, are clearly inferior and pretty soft.

I second this very much. Had it, tested it and returned it. Very very very soft. It will translate to UW performance too. One certainly wont be able to use WACP-C/28-70 to get this (WACP-C/28-60 @60)

Edited October 26Oct 26 by RomiK

10 hours ago, Christian K said:

What Nikon-lens is recommended for the 135D? The extra 5 degrees makes it an interesting alternative inmo. Does it need a converter on a Nauticam N120 ports? Cheers.

Marelux lists the Nikon Z 24-50mm F/4-6.3 and Z 24-70mm F/2.8 S II. You can also consider the Sony FE 28mm, FE 28-60mm and FE 28-70mm lenses with Megadap adapter.