Sony 28-60 lens with Nauticam wet optics

[Phil Rudin]

18 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

 

 

Just to clarify the photos are 28-60 at 28mm for first two and Tamron 28-75 at 28mm for the last and they are all behind a WACP or WWL optic at varying extensions taken from a fixed location in the pool?

 

 

All of the tests were with WACP-C, all from the same fixed spot, first with Nauticam, 28-60 and 30mm extension, Second Marelux housing with the 17mm N100 to Marelux adapter, third with the Tamron 28-75 in the Marelux housing with the Marelux 17mm N100 to Marelux adapter and Marelux 30mm extension. Be aware that the Tamron will not zoom through all the way and will hit the rear of WACP-C like it does in the Nauticam with this lens and WACP-1. All were at the 28mm setting and the 28-60 gives full zoom through on both housings.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Phil Rudin said:

All of the tests were with WACP-C, all from the same fixed spot, first with Nauticam, 28-60 and 30mm extension, Second Marelux housing with the 17mm N100 to Marelux adapter, third with the Tamron 28-75 in the Marelux housing with the Marelux 17mm N100 to Marelux adapter and Marelux 30mm extension. Be aware that the Tamron will not zoom through all the way and will hit the rear of WACP-C like it does in the Nauticam with this lens and WACP-1. All were at the 28mm setting and the 28-60 gives full zoom through on both housings.

When I tested the Tamron 28-75 G2 with WACP-C prototype it vignetted at any focal length

 

 

[Phil Rudin]

1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

When I tested the Tamron 28-75 G2 with WACP-C prototype it vignetted at any focal length

 

 

Perhaps the result of a difference in housings and the extension lengths used. I think you may have been on to something with wanting a 25mm or 20mm Nauticam extension for WACP-C with 28-60. I thought the same after seeing the diffrrence between the two Brands and the reduced flare over the 30mm extension.

[Alex_Mustard]

In a different conversation, I heard that in a Marelux housing the camera is 13mm further inside from the port, than in a Nauticam housing. So a 17mm port extension on a Marelux housing would be the same as 30mm on a Nauticam. Despite diving with so many photographers each year, I am still yet to see a Marelux housing with my own eyes to verify this - so I could be wrong - but I was told this number. 

 

For this reason, the prototype of the FCP would not have been useable with a Marelux Z8 housing (as it required no port extension on the Nauticam Z8 - so 13mm too far away on Marelux). And probably other brands too. I do not know if this is why the production version of the FCP is shorter to allow it to be used on more types of housing. 

Edited January 5 by Alex_Mustard

[Phil Rudin]

14 minutes ago, Alex_Mustard said:

In a different conversation, I heard that in a Marelux housing the camera is 13mm further inside from the port, than in a Nauticam housing. So a 17mm port extension on a Marelux housing would be the same as 30mm on a Nauticam. Despite diving with so many photographers each year, I am still yet to see a Marelux housing with my own eyes to verify this - so I could be wrong - but I was told this number. 

 

For this reason, the prototype of the FCP would not have been useable with a Marelux Z8 housing (as it required no port extension on the Nauticam Z8 - so 13mm too far away on Marelux). And probably other brands too. I do not know if this is why the production version of the FCP is shorter to allow it to be used on more types of housing. 

Hi Alex,

 

This is how they look side by side with the N100 to N120 35.5 extension on the Nauticam and the N120 to Marelux 20mm extension on the Marelux housing with the 28-60 zoomed to 28mm. I used both configurations with the WACP-1.

 

So in the 13mm to 15mm range sounds about right, if both are flush with the end of the ring the difference would seem to be 15.5mm. With the N100 to Marelux for WACP-C the lens would appear to be closer to the lens. 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Phil Rudin said:

Perhaps the result of a difference in housings and the extension lengths used. I think you may have been on to something with wanting a 25mm or 20mm Nauticam extension for WACP-C with 28-60. I thought the same after seeing the diffrrence between the two Brands and the reduced flare over the 30mm extension.

No extension the Tamron is much longer than the Sony around 5 cm and I put it right on the port at 28mm and it vignetted so I excluded it. Are you sure this is not the WACP-1 you have there in water? The WACP-C works with tamron 17028 and 20-40 but not 28-75 G2 

[RomiK]

On 12/29/2023 at 4:37 PM, Proteus said:

I'm glad we're having this discussion, because I could "swear" that I'm getting better images from the 20-70!  And yes, I understand the AOV and corner compromises.

There is no "science" behind my impression.  Given that I've never done side by side, or equivalent settings comparisons I would be the first to defer to those that have done that kind of work.  That said, I am really liking the 20-70 and am thinking that it may become my "go-to" lens, especially in uncertain visibilities.  I had planned to use the 28-60 / WWL-1B for this, but now I'm wondering ...

Gary

 Same experience here. I just like dome images much better than wet optics. 20-70F4 or even 16-35F4PZ produce nicer images than 28-60/WWL1B or EMWL in my experience and opinion. The subject sharpness and more importantly the micro contrast of these images just make them stand out for comparable shots.

 

20-70F4 is amazing lens for dives expecting unexpected 🙂 Here a quick shot from Maldives 'channel sharks' location. While observing sharks with wide angle this little beauty just popped among us by the reef hooks 🙂 - 20-70F4 at 70mm F4

 

[Guest]

11 hours ago, RomiK said:

 Same experience here. I just like dome images much better than wet optics. 20-70F4 or even 16-35F4PZ produce nicer images than 28-60/WWL1B or EMWL in my experience and opinion. The subject sharpness and more importantly the micro contrast of these images just make them stand out for comparable shots.

 

20-70F4 is amazing lens for dives expecting unexpected 🙂 Here a quick shot from Maldives 'channel sharks' location. While observing sharks with wide angle this little beauty just popped among us by the reef hooks 🙂 - 20-70F4 at 70mm F4

 

Thats not the type of shots you use a wet wide lens for

wwl1 field of view compares better with a 14mm shot 16:9

[Tino Dietsche]

Hello everyone,

 

I'm thinking about whether I should complement my current setup with the 28-60, or whether I should replace my current wide-angle setup.

 

I currently use the Sony 16-35mm F4 with the 180mm glass dome from Nauticam for wide angle on my Sony A7III. For macro I use the Sony FE 90mm Macro with the corresponding port.

 

Basically, I'm happy with the solution, but there are often situations and dives where a more flexible solution would be absolutely exciting. I'm therefore considering whether I should sell the Nauticam Dome port and buy the port for the 28-60mm instead. Plus a WWL-1 or WWL-1B. For minimal macro shots I would have a Weefine WFL05S. And for dives where I really want full macro quality, I can still use the 90mm.

 

What do you think about the considerations? I'm flying to the Red Sea again in May after a long time and think that the 28-60 combination offers more flexibility. In terms of quality, the differences in the wide-angle range shouldn't be that extreme when using a WWL-1, or am I mistaken? 

 

For macro there is certainly a certain difference in quality between the 28-60 and an attachment lens compared to the 90mm macro.

What certainly also speaks for the 28-60mm setup is the transport volume.

 

I'm curious about your opinions and feedback.

Greetings from Switzerland,

 

Tino

[Barmaglot]

9 minutes ago, Tino Dietsche said:

For minimal macro shots I would have a Weefine WFL05S. And for dives where I really want full macro quality, I can still use the 90mm.

WFL05S is a very strong diopter; I tried using it with a 16-50mm on crop, and the maximum focus distance is very short. It can shoot quite small subjects, but it is difficult to use, and you'd have a fairly large window where a subject is too small for bare lens, but too large for diopter. The 90mm is a lot more flexible in terms of macro - if you want to add limited macro capability to an otherwise wide-angle rig (i.e. 28-60mm + WWL), you would need a weaker diopter, something along the lines of a +5, like an Inon UCL-165.

[Tino Dietsche]

1 minute ago, Barmaglot said:

WFL05S is a very strong diopter; I tried using it with a 16-50mm on crop, and the maximum focus distance is very short. It can shoot quite small subjects, but it is difficult to use, and you'd have a fairly large window where a subject is too small for bare lens, but too large for diopter. The 90mm is a lot more flexible in terms of macro - if you want to add limited macro capability to an otherwise wide-angle rig (i.e. 28-60mm + WWL), you would need a weaker diopter, something along the lines of a +5, like an Inon UCL-165.

Thanks for the feedback, in that case I'll look for an alternative macro lens if I switch to the setup.

[RomiK]

What I like on 28-60/WWL1B is flexibility, corner to corner 'sharpness' and angle of view with zoom. It's not going to have sharpness and micro contrast of a good lens in a dome but then there are more variables under water so... In my experience and view as all water contact optics it likes a lot of straight light and doesn't like challenging light conditions like light shooting against contrast edges etc. But 99% the only time you would see differences in the micro contrast and other woodoo parameters would be direct comparison side by side of the identical image so... Here original unprocessed, 100% region, 400% region and final (to me) image shot at 57mm F11 ISO400 on A1. Good luck, still not sure if I am gonna keep it as I switch lenses in the dome plus my favorite all arounder is 20-70F4... so there might be one combo available in Prague. Cheers

Edited February 18 by RomiK