Nauticam Fisheye Conversion Port shipping Mid January

[Chris Ross]

3 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

This is a canon 8-15 + Kenko shot close up at f/16 (as you are close) for me this is very sharp

 

 

Assume it's full frame but yes looks quite sharp enough to me - of course at 1200 px or so you aren't pixel peeping but looks every bit as sharp as any other pic I've seen at this resolution.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

Assume it's full frame but yes looks quite sharp enough to me - of course at 1200 px or so you aren't pixel peeping but looks every bit as sharp as any other pic I've seen at this resolution.

The article I wrote on the tc has images at 6 megapixels

have a look for yourself 

obviously one must not confuse depth of field issues with dome port aberrations 

[Alex_Mustard]

On 2/21/2024 at 7:55 AM, Interceptor121 said:

From memory Alex has a Nikon 8-15 with Nikon TC

he sent me some images once and yes they looked average 

however he doesn’t have the canon 8-15 with kenko as I do

i have shot this combination I don’t see major issues at all and looks much better than his Nikon combo

personally I am quite exigent on image quality and I will want to test the FCP in a pool myself before I commit to the spend but also to the bulk of that set up 

 

Sorry for my absence from this chat. Been a busy time for me with the launch of UPY.

 

I shot the Kenko TC (1.4x Pro) with the Nikon 8-15mm on my Sony A1. Which works - but really does not realise anything like the full image quality from a 40-60MP sensor and falls an equally long way shot of what those lenses do without the TC.This is no great revelation - since the first full frame cameras 15 years ago - loads of people have been trying this solution, buying the expensive Zoom gear to work with the TC, and the vast majority ultimately reject it and have been since the days of Canon 5D Mk2s.

For the record I think that the Nikon 8-15mm on its own and the Canon 8-15mm on their own deliver really strong optical quality used with adaptors on the latest Mirrorless cameras. But while the adaptors don't impact image quality they do impact on their usability - on my last trip I ended up lending out my Nikon 8-15mm and Monster converter to a guy who was having intermittent issues with the Canon 8-15mm on Metabones. 

 

It is also important to remember that for many image quality is in the eye of the beholder. And many underwater photographers are happy with images as long as they look good to social media and print well at home. And the Fisheye + TC solution certainly delivers that. 

 

But my images are sold and used around the world, and I need image quality that stands up when I am not there to say "well there was a lot of particles in the water that day, and a lot of current" - they need to look great when zoomed right in and that's why I've rejected the TC fisheye as a mainstream solution for my camera. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Alex_Mustard said:

 

Sorry for my absence from this chat. Been a busy time for me with the launch of UPY.

 

I shot the Kenko TC (1.4x Pro) with the Nikon 8-15mm on my Sony A1. Which works - but really does not realise anything like the full image quality from a 40-60MP sensor and falls an equally long way shot of what those lenses do without the TC.This is no great revelation - since the first full frame cameras 15 years ago - loads of people have been trying this solution, buying the expensive Zoom gear to work with the TC, and the vast majority ultimately reject it and have been since the days of Canon 5D Mk2s.

For the record I think that the Nikon 8-15mm on its own and the Canon 8-15mm on their own deliver really strong optical quality used with adaptors on the latest Mirrorless cameras. But while the adaptors don't impact image quality they do impact on their usability - on my last trip I ended up lending out my Nikon 8-15mm and Monster converter to a guy who was having intermittent issues with the Canon 8-15mm on Metabones. 

 

It is also important to remember that for many image quality is in the eye of the beholder. And many underwater photographers are happy with images as long as they look good to social media and print well at home. And the Fisheye + TC solution certainly delivers that. 

 

But my images are sold and used around the world, and I need image quality that stands up when I am not there to say "well there was a lot of particles in the water that day, and a lot of current" - they need to look great when zoomed right in and that's why I've rejected the TC fisheye as a mainstream solution for my camera. 

Kenko have phased out the teleplus 300 The new model is the  HD PRO Premium 1.4x teleconverter to replace long-seller TELEPLUS PRO300 series with redesigned optics to fit high resolution DSLR cameras and lenses.

 

It may as well be that this is marketing blurb however if you have the teleplus 300 it may as well be that the performance is inadequate as kenko says

I have the HD PRO 1.4x

 

 

[TimG]

1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

Kenko have phased out the teleplus 300 The new model is the  HD PRO Premium 1.4x teleconverter to replace long-seller TELEPLUS PRO300 series with redesigned optics to fit high resolution DSLR cameras and lenses.

 

It may as well be that this is marketing blurb however if you have the teleplus 300 it may as well be that the performance is inadequate as kenko says

I have the HD PRO 1.4x

 

 

We’re going way off topic, but my experience with the Kenko TC is that not all models work in combination with all lenses on all camera models. Maybe the HD Pro Premium fixes that. The HD Pro certainly didn’t. 
 

I posted a breakdown on Wetpixel a couple of years on what I found worked with what using  the 300 and HD Pro models of the Kenko TC1.4, a Nikkor 8-15 and the Tokina 10-17 and a Nikon D500. I’ll repost that on a new thread about teleconverters. 
 

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, TimG said:

We’re going way off topic, but my experience with the Kenko TC is that not all models work in combination with all lenses on all camera models. Maybe the HD Pro Premium fixes that. The HD Pro certainly didn’t. 
 

I posted a breakdown on Wetpixel a couple of years on what I found worked with what using  the 300 and HD Pro models of the Kenko TC1.4, a Nikkor 8-15 and the Tokina 10-17 and a Nikon D500. I’ll repost that on a new thread about teleconverters. 
 

 

I think my post is well on topic

While I agree that lens without TC should be better than lens with TC the idea is that FCP is better than fisheye lens or fisheye lens with TC

I do not see fisheye plus TC a weak alternative based on my experience

I may not be a great photographer but I literally split hair so I am OCD so if something for me is acceptable it means is above average in almost all other cases

[TimG]

4 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

I think my post is well on topic

While I agree that lens without TC should be better than lens with TC the idea is that FCP is better than fisheye lens or fisheye lens with TC

I do not see fisheye plus TC a weak alternative based on my experience

I may not be a great photographer but I literally split hair so I am OCD so if something for me is acceptable it means is above average in almost all other cases

I was talking about me going off topic, Massimo…

[fruehaufsteher2]

WACP-C vs. FCP

 

FCP Will be used in May 

[John E]

On 2/22/2024 at 7:54 PM, Interceptor121 said:

Kenko have phased out the teleplus 300 The new model is the  HD PRO Premium 1.4x teleconverter to replace long-seller TELEPLUS PRO300 series with redesigned optics to fit high resolution DSLR cameras and lenses.

 

It may as well be that this is marketing blurb however if you have the teleplus 300 it may as well be that the performance is inadequate as kenko says

I have the HD PRO 1.4x

 

 

Just to avoid possible confusion, the current "premium" quality Kenko 1.4x tele-converters are called "Teleplus HD Pro 1.4X DGX". There isn't "premium" in the name. The other cheaper current model is the Teleplus HD 1.4X DGX

[DreiFish]

Looks like Canon RF has the widest versatility for use with the FCP. 4 different lenses can be used:

 

If Nauticam's converted FOV numbers are to be trusted, then the FCP converts the

 

24-50 becomes Fisheye to 23mm rectilinear equivalent

28-80 becomes Fisheye to 40mm rectilinear equivalent

28-70 becomes Fisheye to 36mm rectilinear equivalent

14-35 becomes Circular Fisheye + Fisheye to 12mm rectilinear equivalent.

 

The 28-80 lens seems particularly interesting if this is true.. that's the kind of range and flexiblity for wide angle that just isn't possible with any other setup. 

[Chris Ross]

1 hour ago, DreiFish said:

Looks like Canon RF has the widest versatility for use with the FCP. 4 different lenses can be used:

 

If Nauticam's converted FOV numbers are to be trusted, then the FCP converts the

 

24-50 becomes Fisheye to 23mm rectilinear equivalent

28-80 becomes Fisheye to 40mm rectilinear equivalent

28-70 becomes Fisheye to 36mm rectilinear equivalent

14-35 becomes Circular Fisheye + Fisheye to 12mm rectilinear equivalent.

 

The 28-80 lens seems particularly interesting if this is true.. that's the kind of range and flexiblity for wide angle that just isn't possible with any other setup. 

The wide range of the 28-80 certainly seems attractive.  If you assume the formula for an equisolid angle fisheye is correct the it's interesting that the focal length multiplier for this formula gets smaller as the focal length increases.  You have to iterate on the focal length to match Nauticam's fields as reported in the port chart.

I usually calculate the horizontal field from the diagonal field to compare between wet optics and rectilinears as the corners stretch more than the horizontal field does, so this means the 35mm end of the 14-35 is closer to a 15mm rectilinear lens, but has the diagonal field of a 12mm rectilinear.  At longer focal lengths the difference between horizontal and diagonal fields when comparing this difference is a lot less so just comparing diagonal fields to a rectilinear is close enough.

[Brandon Cole]

Folks,

I recommend you try to test/demo water contact lenses with the ancient Canon 28-70 and 28-80 lenses before making the big purchase. I bought 2 copies of 28-70, and 1 of 28-80, for use with WACP-1 on Canon 5d4 and I was disappointed with all 3 Canon. None of those lenses were sharp enough, in my opinion, and the AF was slow. The speed at which they autofocused was not what I needed for fast action pelagic stuff. Between the slow AF and mediocre sharpness, I thought they were a waste behind the WACP and I discontinued use. Perhaps your needs and expectations and results would be different than mine. I hope so. Perhaps it would be fine for normal reef scenery and critter work. The zoom range is amazing, yes... Nikon shooters with their ancient 28-70 seemed much happier behind the same WACP. I can only surmise that the Nikon kit lens is a better optic than the two Canons models. Of course I have not tested either of the Canons behind the new FCP. My comments are exclusively for the WACP.

[Brandon Cole]

Hopefully the much newer (and more expensive) Canon RF lenses would deliver sharper results, and faster autofocus. I would think so, but do not have any firsthand experience.

[DreiFish]

 

9 hours ago, Brandon Cole said:

Folks,

I recommend you try to test/demo water contact lenses with the ancient Canon 28-70 and 28-80 lenses before making the big purchase. I bought 2 copies of 28-70, and 1 of 28-80, for use with WACP-1 on Canon 5d4 and I was disappointed with all 3 Canon. None of those lenses were sharp enough, in my opinion, and the AF was slow. The speed at which they autofocused was not what I needed for fast action pelagic stuff. Between the slow AF and mediocre sharpness, I thought they were a waste behind the WACP and I discontinued use. Perhaps your needs and expectations and results would be different than mine. I hope so. Perhaps it would be fine for normal reef scenery and critter work. The zoom range is amazing, yes... Nikon shooters with their ancient 28-70 seemed much happier behind the same WACP. I can only surmise that the Nikon kit lens is a better optic than the two Canons models. Of course I have not tested either of the Canons behind the new FCP. My comments are exclusively for the WACP.

 

Hi Brandon,

 

Sounds like we've had somewhat different experiences. 

 

I own all 4 of the lenses and have used the EF 28-70 F3.5-4.5 and RF 24-50 and 14-35 with the WACP-1 on an R5C.  I also briefly tried the 28-80, but I think the 28-70 is sharper for sure. I also think the EF 28-70, old as it is, is at least as sharp as the new RF 24-50 and suffers from less distortion. It is noisy to focus, but I didn't find the focus speed to be an issue with reef scenic wide-angle shots. I also used the 28-70 + WACP-1 on a couple of shark dives and didn't have shots out of focus or slow focusing issues. But perhaps my expectations are just lower.

 

The RF 14-35 is clearly the best of the lot, both in terms of image quality and autofocus, but you're stuck using a very limited zoom range unless you pair it up with the behemoth WACP-2. 

 

What camera body were you using them with? And.. what did you end up using instead, if they didn't live up to your expectations?

[DreiFish]

9 hours ago, Brandon Cole said:

Hopefully the much newer (and more expensive) Canon RF lenses would deliver sharper results, and faster autofocus. I would think so, but do not have any firsthand experience.

 

The issue is that the only mid-range RF lens that works with the WACP-C line is the 24-50 F4.5-5.6... which is a cheap kit lens at the end of the day. Image quality is alright, but as said, I didn't think it was an improvement over the EF 28-70.

[Brandon Cole]

Thank you for your comments, DreiFish. And I'm glad you had a better experience than I did! I was using the Canon 5D mark 4, so not a mirrorless. But it's a camera with good AF, and when paired with good (to good enough lenses) I never felt it noticeably slow to focus in otherwise normal light and with pelagic fast moving subjects, often at distance and then racing in. But all three of the lenses I used (purchased from different parties, all on e-bay, of course) were disappointing. (I did shoot some reef scenics where AF was not really tested, and it worked acceptably well. But certainly wasn't anywhere near as sharp as a native fisheye, and with no real splits ability, I did not want to lug around the WACP and the 230 on every trip.) So I abandoned the whole endeavor, selling the WACP, thinking I would revisit in the future. Though I also shoot Nikon (then and still now), I generally prefer Canon for wide angle. More because of the camera controls, auto white balance, and so on. So I did not try the Nikon old kit lenses with that WACP. But many people have been, and continue to use that combo and seem very happy with it. I'm hoping better experience with the FCP in the future. Obvious with different lenses. 

[Alex_Mustard]

I've not shot with the Canon 24-50mm, but I have been very impressed with the quality of the Nikon 24-50mm Z lens (with the WACP, WWL and FCP on the Z8). Had that lens been available when I switched to mirrorless, I might have stayed with Nikon, rather than going to Sony. So I'd say not to dismiss these lenses across the board - because some of them are very sharp. 

[Barmaglot]

8 minutes ago, Alex_Mustard said:

Had that lens been available when I switched to mirrorless, I might have stayed with Nikon, rather than going to Sony

Have you seen the new 24-50 that Sony announced? Supposed to start shipping in May. 

[fruehaufsteher2]

1 hour ago, Barmaglot said:

Have you seen the new 24-50 that Sony announced? Supposed to start shipping in May. 

I would be interested to see whether this surely not bad lens will improve IQ over the already really good 28-60. Of course you get even more FOV (24 vs. 28) but the liimit of 50mm would be a no-go for me. The entry pupil seems quite large what also could limit the quality.

Rather be interested: Is there a native good sony lens with 28-80 or something like this?

[Barmaglot]

7 minutes ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

Rather be interested: Is there a native good sony lens with 28-80 or something like this?

There's a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 that Nauticam has on the WACP-1 chart, but not on FCP chart. I wonder if that's because it doesn't work with FCP for some reason, or simply because they haven't tested it yet.

[Chris Ross]

40 minutes ago, Barmaglot said:

There's a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 that Nauticam has on the WACP-1 chart, but not on FCP chart. I wonder if that's because it doesn't work with FCP for some reason, or simply because they haven't tested it yet.

It looks like it hits the port at 45mm zoom - possibly more of an issue with the FCP?

[Barmaglot]

Oh, didn't notice that... Yeah, that's a deal-breaker. 

[fruehaufsteher2]

10 minutes ago, Chris Ross said:

It looks like it hits the port at 45mm zoom - possibly more of an issue with the FCP?

Where's that from? I looked at the digitalkamera.de review and it states that the lens increases its length from 12,3cm to 14,1cm. That doesn't seem too much. But I remember that this lens has already been in discussion here, don't know where....

https://www.digitalkamera.de/Zubehör-Test/Testbericht_Tamron_28-75_mm_F2_8_Di_III_VXD_G2_A063S/12902.aspx

[fruehaufsteher2]

Ah, there it is:

 

https://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?/topic/70736-any-tamron-28-75mm-wacp-1-users/&tab=comments#comment-448475

[Chris Ross]

14 hours ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

Where's that from? I looked at the digitalkamera.de review and it states that the lens increases its length from 12,3cm to 14,1cm. That doesn't seem too much. But I remember that this lens has already been in discussion here, don't know where....

https://www.digitalkamera.de/Zubehör-Test/Testbericht_Tamron_28-75_mm_F2_8_Di_III_VXD_G2_A063S/12902.aspx

It's in the port charts it says you can zoom between 28 and 45mm.  Nauticam list the available zoom range for all lenses behind their wet lenses.