Hello everyone,

I have already been able to test the R5 combination with the RF 24-50 and a WWL-C. The image quality is very good! 
Now there is also the option to use the RF 24-50 with the WACP-C.

Has anyone tested both and can say whether it makes an optical difference? 

The other option for the WACP-C would be the RF15-30mm, but unfortunately I haven't found anything on this. You are welcome to share your experiences here too 🙂

Hi @Landvogt1893  Great question.  I have owned/used the WWL-1 with my Sony 28-60 for several years.  I suspect the WWL-C would have a relatively similar image quality.   I too find it to be a terrific system; far batter than a traditional dome.

 

About a year ago I picked up a WACP-C.  After about 50 dives with it I feel the image quality between the two is extremely close.  The WACP-C does edge it out by a hair if you compare the exact same image side by side, but you have to look closely.  With that said, there are some differences that may or may not be relevant.  
 

The WACP-C allows about a stop of extra sharpness.  I find the WWL is sharp edge to edge at f/11, with f/8 being mostly acceptable sharpness on the edges.  The WACP-C is edge to edge sharp at f/9 (or f/8), with f/5.6 being possible.  (Your mileage may vary based on the edge detail and personal expectations).

 

The WWL requires it to be “burped” after entry to ensure no water bubbles form between the port and WWL that can disrupt focus.  The WACP does not as it is a port.  I call it a “jump and go” system, which especially useful if you need to make a quick entry and do not want to run the risk of missing the needed burp.

 

The WWL is a little lighter and perhaps easier for travel due to being 2 pieces.  The WACP is slightly heavier and a tad more negative requiring just a little more buoyancy.

 

And then there’s the cost difference.  This may or may not be a consideration.

 

For me, I live in South Florida where I do mostly local diving.  As such I use the WACP-C most often because travel size and weight are not a concern.  If I were traveling more I would most likely stay with the WWL as the quality is so close, and I had already invested in it.

 

I hope this gives you some useful info to consider.  I know there are others who have shared similar experiences.  It all comes down to your personal priorities.  Best of luck in your decision! 

Thanks for details. I just bought a WWL-C to shoot on a Z8. I hope to give it a spin in a week or two.

9 hours ago, Dave_Hicks said:

Thanks for details. I just bought a WWL-C to shoot on a Z8. I hope to give it a spin in a week or two.

Congrats - sounds like a great system!  Would enjoy hearing your thoughts after the test drive. 

Edited January 23, 20241 yr by ChipBPhoto

19 hours ago, Landvogt1893 said:

 

The other option for the WACP-C would be the RF15-30mm, but unfortunately I haven't found anything on this. You are welcome to share your experiences here too 🙂

A little bit apples and oranges comparing the 15-30 (f4.5-6.3 IS STM) to other options you mention.  It's in the port chart as an option for an APS-C sensor where it gives the full expected range between 18 and 30mm focal length.  It's not on the port chart for full frame, but guess that it would work on Full frame but between 28 and 30mm only.

5 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

A little bit apples and oranges comparing the 15-30 (f4.5-6.3 IS STM) to other options you mention.  It's in the port chart as an option for an APS-C sensor where it gives the full expected range between 18 and 30mm focal length.  It's not on the port chart for full frame, but guess that it would work on Full frame but between 28 and 30mm only.

That's a good point - I overlooked it or misunderstood it. So the WACP does not work with the RF lenses or is there any experience here?  The 28-70 is out due to the really slow AF. 

Why do people always talk about the WWL-C in the Canon R series and not the WWL-1B? 

18 hours ago, ChipBPhoto said:

Hi @Landvogt1893  Great question.  I have owned/used the WWL-1 with my Sony 28-60 for several years.  I suspect the WWL-C would have a relatively similar image quality.   I too find it to be a terrific system; far batter than a traditional dome.

 

About a year ago I picked up a WACP-C.  After about 50 dives with it I feel the image quality between the two is extremely close.  The WACP-C does edge it out by a hair if you compare the exact same image side by side, but you have to look closely.  With that said, there are some differences that may or may not be relevant.  
 

The WACP-C allows about a stop of extra sharpness.  I find the WWL is sharp edge to edge at f/11, with f/8 being mostly acceptable sharpness on the edges.  The WACP-C is edge to edge sharp at f/9 (or f/8), with f/5.6 being possible.  (Your mileage may vary based on the edge detail and personal expectations).

 

The WWL requires it to be “burped” after entry to ensure no water bubbles form between the port and WWL that can disrupt focus.  The WACP does not as it is a port.  I call it a “jump and go” system, which especially useful if you need to make a quick entry and do not want to run the risk of missing the needed burp.

 

The WWL is a little lighter and perhaps easier for travel due to being 2 pieces.  The WACP is slightly heavier and a tad more negative requiring just a little more buoyancy.

 

And then there’s the cost difference.  This may or may not be a consideration.

 

For me, I live in South Florida where I do mostly local diving.  As such I use the WACP-C most often because travel size and weight are not a concern.  If I were traveling more I would most likely stay with the WWL as the quality is so close, and I had already invested in it.

 

I hope this gives you some useful info to consider.  I know there are others who have shared similar experiences.  It all comes down to your personal priorities.  Best of luck in your decision! 

The points you mentioned also make me worry. Unfortunately, I can only find tests with Sony cameras and so far none with a Canon R5, for example. 

What also worries me about the WWL-C is that you could lose focus a bit. I'm currently jumping into the water and know that I only have the setup for wide-angle and ignore everything to do with macro. If you can change the lens now, you're quickly tempted to take a macro here and a wide-angle there... you might quickly lose sight of the essentials 🙂

Edited January 23, 20241 yr by Landvogt1893

2 hours ago, Landvogt1893 said:

So the WACP does not work with the RF lenses or is there any experience here?  The 28-70 is out due to the really slow AF. 

Why do people always talk about the WWL-C in the Canon R series and not the WWL-1B? 

The WWL-1 does not appear to be compatible with Canon RF lenses according to the Nauticam N120 RF chart.  However, the RF 24-50, released Feb 2023, provides an option.  It seems to match with both the WACP-C and WWL-C, which is a big win.  (Per 6/23 chart link below)
 

I personally haven’t tried it, but I would assume the WWL-C performs similarly to the WWL-1, which I know well.  Initially, it was designed to be the WWL for compact lenses, but the physics work for the RF 24-50.  As a bonus, it’s smaller than the WWL-1.

 

Keep in mind the more simple, cheaper lenses often work better in the wet optics systems.  The WWL and WACP does the heavy lifting of correcting and sharpening specifically for water.

 

Personally, I like the versatility of the WWL / WACP.  Aside from true macro, it covers 90%+ of what I want to photo.  Even though I may dive with a specific subject in mind, I can photo most anything I may encounter.  I’ve even come back with some nice closeup detail images of Flamingo Tongues.  With that said, everyone has their own priorities and rig they like.  In the end, it is up to you which way, or a different way, you want to go.
 

Hope this helps! 
 

https://www.nauticam.com/pages/n120-canon-r-mount-port-chart

 

Edited January 23, 20241 yr by ChipBPhoto

Do you have any idea why the WWL-1B is not in play here? 

If you are interested, I can provide a RAW of the R5 with the 24-50 and the WWL-C 🙂

 

One with WWL-C and one with only the 24-50 at a night dive 🙂 

 

1/200 F6.3 ISO 640

1/200 F9 ISO 400

 

Edited January 23, 20241 yr by Landvogt1893

3 hours ago, Landvogt1893 said:

Do you have any idea why the WWL-1B is not in play here? 

Nice images!  Yes, mystery solved on C vs 1.

I was told:

 - WWL-C was designed around the 24mm focal length.

 - WWL-1 was designed around the 28mm length.

 - Quality between C and 1 is basically the same.