Sony 16-35GM2 Underwater Test and Review

[Guest]

https://interceptor121.com/2024/01/05/sony-fe-16-35mm-f2-8-gm-ii-for-underwater-photography/

[Phil Rudin]

Am I correct in assuming that the 55mm over 50mm recommendation is for a 180mm port on Nauticam and the 60 port chart for 230mm is untested at this time because the review is a bit vague in that regard. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Phil Rudin said:

Am I correct in assuming that the 55mm over 50mm recommendation is for a 180mm port on Nauticam and the 60 port chart for 230mm is untested at this time because the review is a bit vague in that regard. 

The 230mm lens is not tested as that port is flatter it will require the same 55mm extension

This will bring the MOD 1 cm within the dome unlikely to make any real life difference

The 230mm dome is for lenses with a wider field of view it is only 1cm more in radius and the 16-35gm2 already focuses touching the 180mm port

[Phil Rudin]

Let me start over, sorry for not looking at Nauticam port charts before commenting. I would be old school Nauticam where everything was done with an N100 to N120 35.5 port adapter. Now the Nauticam 180mm port is made in both N100 and N120 so I am assuming you are using the N100 to N120 35.5 adapter plus 55mm of extension so a total of 90.5mm of extension. I am also assuming that the lens needs to be mounted from the front of the housing and then the port, extension is mounted over the top. Do you know it the lens will fit in the N100 extension? 

 

 

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, Phil Rudin said:

Let me start over, sorry for not looking at Nauticam port charts before commenting. I would be old school Nauticam where everything was done with an N100 to N120 35.5 port adapter. Now the Nauticam 180mm port is made in both N100 and N120 so I am assuming you are using the N100 to N120 35.5 adapter plus 55mm of extension so a total of 90.5mm of extension. I am also assuming that the lens needs to be mounted from the front of the housing and then the port, extension is mounted over the top. Do you know it the lens will fit in the N100 extension? 

 

 

 

No worries

The 16-35GM2 is a quite chunky lens however it has a normal zoom gear and it can be placed inside the housing together with the camera. The lens hood needs to be removed.

I have the N120 180mm wide angle port as per port chart and the N100 N120 35.5mm port adapter

You need an additional 55mm which in my case is 35+20 for the port.

Nauticam recommends 50mm based on my usage 55mm is the ideal point however it may be good with 50mm too

In total we have 90.5mm between housing and wide angle port

If you have the N100 180mm wide angle port I believe the lens will still fit and in that case you can add a 50mm and 40mm N100 extension. The only thing that you will not be able to do is to use a focus gear which for a lens like this is not required

 

The 16-35GM2 is one of my favourite top side lenses however I would not suggest that this makes such a leap forward from the tamron 17-28mm and the range 28-35mm underwater is not so important therefore if this had to be just for underwater use I would say it is a bit of an overkill

On the 230mm wide angle port you should be fine with a total of 80mm as that port is bigger but also flatter

[Proteus]

Thanks again to Interceptor121!  I enjoy reading the articles, and the detailed testing (and photos) really helps one to see the differences in a controlled environment.  Prior, I've struggled to separate lens performance from all the other variables that are changing in the "wild".  Your. work is much appreciated.

 

Gary

[Proteus]

In your review you say, "so far the Tamron 17-28 held the prime spot" but I cannot find a Tamron review on your site.  Am I missing it?  I'd like to see the tests (or posts) that led to your opinion as I'd like to compare with your detailed 16-35 work.

 

Gary

 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Proteus said:

In your review you say, "so far the Tamron 17-28 held the prime spot" but I cannot find a Tamron review on your site.  Am I missing it?  I'd like to see the tests (or posts) that led to your opinion as I'd like to compare with your detailed 16-35 work.

 

Gary

 

Hi Gary

The tamron is in this piece here 

When I took the tamron shots I was in a different pool from the Sony that is more put it that way murky there are test shots but for example I do not have a tiled wall as that pool is painted

 

I want to take the tamron again in the deeper pool with more viz to come to a conclusion however looking at the comparatives so far I think they are even, the murky pool sucks contrast out so in a few meters you loose sharpness while the other pool you can see wall to wall

 

I have also used the tamron with the wacp-c and that is by far the best IQ I have seen so far overall but it was used as a prime at 28mm

 

 

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, Proteus said:

Thanks again to Interceptor121!  I enjoy reading the articles, and the detailed testing (and photos) really helps one to see the differences in a controlled environment.  Prior, I've struggled to separate lens performance from all the other variables that are changing in the "wild".  Your. work is much appreciated.

 

Gary

This is key. I am trying to have a reproducible test case I am not yet there but am getting there

I only have 60 minutes including gearing up to jump and do my stuff meanwhile I get asked to take photos for the school so it is not super easy

I hate those tests in open water when one speaks about edges not having any idea of the shape of the target, to perform tests you need to have straight lines and measureable depth or it is a complete subjective exercise let alone changing ocean conditions

Edited January 7 by Interceptor121