12 minutes ago, Barmaglot said:

I've seen mentions - no personal experience, mind you - that Sony blocks the use of their teleconverters with third party lenses. This was in the context of Sigma/Tamron E-mount telephotos, but if that is true, I can see an EF-mount lens on Metabones/MC-11 getting blocked as well. Considering that a Sony 2x TC costs $550 while a Kenko one costs $300, the choice seems pretty clear.

It does not get blocked. It works. The issue is the protruding elelement and the lock which the metabones bypasses

When I compared Canon 8-15mm with kenko plus canon 8-15 both at 15mm I could see that the kenko was a bit wider and I preferred the kenko to apsc crop and upscaling a long way better

When I look at kenko + 8-15 compared to WWL-1 I don't see major differences and in case the kenko combo is better however that is not the purpose of that rig which is to fill the gap between fisheye and wwl-1

For that I have been happy with the use case I am not obsessed about what goes on at the edges as many times I dive in dark waters. Maybe when I go to Cayman with this set up I will see the limits

 

I got a kenko 2x and unfortunately the quality drops also near centre.

 

Note how the Kenko 1.4 does not loose any quality that you can see compared to the naked lens

Canon 8-15 @15mm 

 

 

Canon 8-15mm @15mm with kenko 1.4

 

Hi all,

I bought the Sony 2x TC and took it underwater to take a couple of test shots.

The setup is: camera body (Sony A7 IV), Sony 2x TC, Metabones Adapter (Gen. V), Canon 8-15mm (please ignore the zoom gear, this is the original one for the bare lens and does not work with this setup, I used a 3D printed one from @Gudge).

All works fine, the TC and adapter even give the correct focal length in the EXIF data (well, 29 instead of 30mm and 15mm instead of 16mm, so it's probably more of a 1.9something TC). Autofocus feels a tiny bit slower than without TC, but still works really well.

Housing: Nauticam Sony A7 IV housing, 35.5mm N100-N120 adapter, 25mm N120 extension, 30mm N120 extension, 140mm fisheye domeport.

So, for adding this TC, I added a 25mm extension to the standard setup as recommended by Nauticam. Why 25mm? Closest to the interflange distance of the TC (which differs from the overall length you'll find online):

 

Stobes: 2x Inon Z330, triggered with a turtle trigger from @TURTLE-Balage (Balazs, we need to talk about a spare one for my upcoming trips - so happy with it, I'll cry if I break it during a trip and can't use it).

So, enough for the talking, here are the pictures.

 

So, no one comes here for looking at TCs and calipers, so here are the test pics I took on Sunday during a quick plunge.

This are not professional test pics, more or less spontaneously made the decision to take some pics for Waterpixels.

I tried to capture similar scenes with different settings, don't expect a full blown analysis or anything professional below.

Post processing: set all to the same whitebalance and brought them to a similar brightness, exported with standard settings. Upload here in small res, links proviede show them at 100% res for the pixel peepers out here.
 

Series 1:

30mm, 1/160, F8, ISO400 - https://www.directupload.net/file/u/80408/b6y7rcu9_jpg.htm

 

16mm, 1/160, F8, ISO400 - https://www.directupload.net/file/u/80408/pa54tft4_jpg.htm

 

Series 2:

30mm, 1/160, F8, ISO400 - https://www.directupload.net/file/u/80408/b4rwgmny_jpg.htm

 

16mm, 1/160, F8, ISO400 - https://www.directupload.net/file/u/80408/6t5aaoj8_jpg.htm

Series 3:

16mm, 1/160, F10, ISO400 - https://www.directupload.net/file/u/80408/9ymk6stb_jpg.htm

30mm, 1/160, F10, ISO400 - https://www.directupload.net/file/u/80408/qk9enbpn_jpg.htm

 

Series 4: (just tried to take pics perpendicular to the bottom in roughly the same position/distance - corners here should not be due to DOF like in some other pictures posted here)

16mm, 1/125, F16, ISO400 - https://www.directupload.net/file/u/80408/7gb4qcjc_jpg.htm

16mm, 1/125, F13, ISO400 - https://www.directupload.net/file/u/80408/8xf9zz8q_jpg.htm

16mm, 1/125, F9, ISO400 - https://www.directupload.net/file/u/80408/a2vjmtxt_jpg.htm

30mm, 1/125, F9, ISO400 - https://www.directupload.net/file/u/80408/k7yojcd9_jpg.htm

30mm, 1/125, F14, ISO400 - https://www.directupload.net/file/u/80408/lj6wj5r2_jpg.htm

30mm, 1/125, F18, ISO400 - https://www.directupload.net/file/u/80408/pg4bqvsd_jpg.htm

 

Series 5: some pics have the same settings, this is not a typo

16mm, 1/200, F10, ISO400 - https://www.directupload.net/file/u/80408/edbrtbeh_jpg.htm

16mm, 1/200, F13, ISO400 - https://www.directupload.net/file/u/80408/8mtwm23w_jpg.htm

16mm, 1/200, F13, ISO400 - https://www.directupload.net/file/u/80408/rj8clyj6_jpg.htm

16mm, 1/200, F16, ISO400 - https://www.directupload.net/file/u/80408/w63jru5m_jpg.htm

16mm, 1/200, F16, ISO400 - https://www.directupload.net/file/u/80408/frw6b8yp_jpg.htm

 

 

I tried to not mess anything up, so if the links do not match the small pictures, please let me know.

 

And one more thing: just realized, if you open the links above, the pics still are not full res. Right click on picture, select "open in new tab", and then you can look at it in 100% resolution.

30 minutes ago, Fabian said:

And one more thing: just realized, if you open the links above, the pics still are not full res. Right click on picture, select "open in new tab", and then you can look at it in 100% resolution.

 

Are you satisfied with the results? 😈

 

Bit difficult to judge from those images. it would appear a bit better than then kenko in the centre and the fact it needs only 25mm is good news as makes the zoom gear I have work

However considering how expensive a sony 2x TC is (£499) compared to the kenko you find on ebay (£149) I think i would pass

1 hour ago, Davide DB said:

 

Are you satisfied with the results? 😈

 

 

Yes, considering what I've spent, I'm happy. Quality is good enough for me, although it is a bit better without TC, and the versatility is greatly improved.

 

Plus, I can use this TC topside as my longer lenses are Sonys.

Interesting point about the fact that sony teleconverters have different dimensions from kenko

kenko are 2 and 4 cm and fit perfectly in Nauticam extension rings

sony are 17 and 27 you can get a 25 for the 2x but there is no 15mm extension for the 1.4 tc

with regards to using the sony Tc 2.0 this is really a use case for the 70-200 2.8 and the expensive tele primes

if you have say the 100-400 f4.5-f5/6 this lens becomes f/9 -

f/11

Edited March 13, 20241 yr by Interceptor121

On 3/12/2024 at 8:30 PM, Fabian said:

 

Yes, considering what I've spent, I'm happy. Quality is good enough for me, although it is a bit better without TC, and the versatility is greatly improved.

 

Plus, I can use this TC topside as my longer lenses are Sonys.

 

Some time passed, Fabian.

How are you satisfied now, after using the 2x TC more often?

I'm happy with the results (still processing images from my last trip, but looked at a few to judge), just quickly exported 4 semi-processed images. There where not many situations that required the 30mm end (rarley shy animals), but hope this helps to get an impression of the quality:

 

16mm, F18, ISO100, 1/250s:

https://www.directupload.eu/file/u/80408/yubehf35_jpg.htm

16mm, F13, ISO200, 1/100s:

https://www.directupload.eu/file/u/80408/mq74kc3y_jpg.htm

30mm, F14, ISO100, 1/160s:

https://www.directupload.eu/file/u/80408/yazmhih2_jpg.htm

16mm, F16, ISO100, 1/250s:

https://www.directupload.eu/file/u/80408/wnzdo499_jpg.htm

 

My conclusion:

Sharpness is fine for me. Yes, the Canon 8-15mm without the TC is a bit sharper. I only see it at 100% zoom on a 4k screen, so what...

Corners are also fine for me. In some images they are really mushy, but as this is only in some, I suspect this to be mainly due to DOF.

One thing to mention is the light, so despite using similar appertures, I need to increase the ISO a bit compared to shooting without the TC.

The increased zoom range (16-30mm) is definatly worth it, considering the price (< 1000€ additionally to the rest of the setup).

 

In case someone needs some numbers to judge, I did a quick FOV caluclation (might not be perfect, just used the equations I found online), ignoring extension tube effects:

Focal length	FOV vertical	FOV horizontal	FOV diagonal
30	46	70	85
16	88	137	170
15	94	147	180
8	180	180	180

Just now, Fabian said:

16mm, F18, ISO100, 1/250s:

https://www.directupload.eu/file/u/80408/yubehf35_jpg.htm

16mm, F13, ISO200, 1/100s:

https://www.directupload.eu/file/u/80408/mq74kc3y_jpg.htm

30mm, F14, ISO100, 1/160s:

https://www.directupload.eu/file/u/80408/yazmhih2_jpg.htm

16mm, F16, ISO100, 1/250s:

https://www.directupload.eu/file/u/80408/wnzdo499_jpg.htm

For a 100% crop: open the links, right click on image, select "open image in new tab" and then you should be able to see it in full resolution.

15 hours ago, Fabian said:

For a 100% crop: open the links, right click on image, select "open image in new tab" and then you should be able to see it in full resolution.

 

Thank you, Fabian. The images look very good, very impressive, even at pixel peeping level (there may be some chromatic aberration in the images, especially at the transition of the white corals to the blue background, but I guess one could fix this in post in case one wanted to do so)...👍

 

As far as I am able to judge, I do not see better IQ with my WACP-C/Sony 28-60mm combination on A7R5 (but I use it generally at wider apertures, starting from f/7.1 and more)...

 

May I ask that you also post few images without the TC, just with Canon 8-15mm alone, and explain the differences in IQ you mentioned (with and without TC), based on these photos?

 

Did you also try the Sony 1.4x TC?

 

 

Wolfgang

Edited June 27, 20241 yr by Architeuthis

On 6/27/2024 at 10:19 AM, Architeuthis said:

 

[...] May I ask that you also post few images without the TC, just with Canon 8-15mm alone, and explain the differences in IQ you mentioned (with and without TC), based on these photos?

 

Did you also try the Sony 1.4x TC?

Sure, here you go. For those that not read the entire thread but only this post: open link, right click on image, open image in new tab -> zoom to 100%

https://www.directupload.eu/file/u/80408/pras4rij_jpg.htm

ISO 400, F8, 1/60s, 15mm (taken in shallow water but with little ambient light). Port setup as suggested by Nauticam in the port chart for the 140mm. Picture is edited in Capture One, but sharpness is only increased minimal. For comparison, the pike should be a similar distance as the sponges (if I remember correctly, but not sure with the thousands of pics on my drive, I could be wrong)

 

No, I didn't, and as the 1.4x is shorter, it would require a different extension. I'd be happy to make test shots underwater with both setups, but it would require me a different extension (N120 20mm) and the 1.4x TC. If someone has both and is living somewhere in Baden-Württemberg (or willing to dive there 😄) , we can maybe arrange a day to take some proper test shots.

Edited June 30, 20241 yr by Fabian
Edit: corrected to N120 instead of N100

1 hour ago, Fabian said:

Sure, here you go. For those that not read the entire thread but only this post: open link, right click on image, open image in new tab -> zoom to 100%

https://www.directupload.eu/file/u/80408/pras4rij_jpg.htm

ISO 400, F8, 1/60s, 15mm (taken in shallow water but with little ambient light). Port setup as suggested by Nauticam in the port chart for the 140mm. Picture is edited in Capture One, but sharpness is only increased minimal. For comparison, the pike should be a similar distance as the sponges (if I remember correctly, but not sure with the thousands of pics on my drive, I could be wrong)

 

No, I didn't, and as the 1.4x is shorter, it would require a different extension. I'd be happy to make test shots underwater with both setups, but it would require me a different extension (N120 20mm) and the 1.4x TC. If someone has both and is living somewhere in Baden-Württemberg (or willing to dive there 😄) , we can maybe arrange a day to take some proper test shots.

 

 

 

I find these full resolution images are very revealing. At least one can say that 2x Sony TC in tropical Raja Ampat waters (very good visibility but not the best) does not perform worse than Canon 8-15mm alone in local ponds (I guess vis was medicocre). I mean mostly microcontrast and sharpness in the center (I believe this is the criterion whether a TC ruins IQ or not)...

 

=> I definitely will go for the Sony 2x TC now. Thank you ... 👍

 

 

Wolfgang

On 6/30/2024 at 1:18 PM, Fabian said:

Sure, here you go. For those that not read the entire thread but only this post: open link, right click on image, open image in new tab -> zoom to 100%

https://www.directupload.eu/file/u/80408/pras4rij_jpg.htm

ISO 400, F8, 1/60s, 15mm (taken in shallow water but with little ambient light). Port setup as suggested by Nauticam in the port chart for the 140mm. Picture is edited in Capture One, but sharpness is only increased minimal. For comparison, the pike should be a similar distance as the sponges (if I remember correctly, but not sure with the thousands of pics on my drive, I could be wrong)

 

No, I didn't, and as the 1.4x is shorter, it would require a different extension. I'd be happy to make test shots underwater with both setups, but it would require me a different extension (N120 20mm) and the 1.4x TC. If someone has both and is living somewhere in Baden-Württemberg (or willing to dive there 😄) , we can maybe arrange a day to take some proper test shots.

 

Here I am again...😊

 

From the two FCP reviews that I know and have read and by comparing these photos to your photo, I find that IQ could not have been better with FCP (maybe at pixel peeping level and with test charts one could find a difference, but then both reviewers say that the FCP should be used at f/13 and more, while your photo was made at f/8 (and still has plenty of DOF!))...

 

=> As a result I have now the Sony 2x TC here (a certain advantage of Sony over the Kenko is certainly that the extension needed is shorter, but very likely also IQ will be better).

 

I printed in 3D an adapter for the standard Nauticam zoomgear that fits, and now I am considering the right extension to add to the 35.5mm N120 adapter for the first immersion (Nauticam A7R5). According to Nauticam, the additional 25mm extension is too short just a little (-2,19mm): However, DreiFish recommends from his tests with the bare Canon 8-15mm, that 5mm more would be better for the 140mm domeport:

=> according to Dreifish, 55mm would be -7.19mm too short, what sounds a lot for the small 140mm domeport. A 60mm extension would restore the -2.19mm difference. According to DreiFish, the corner performance will improve a little. Even 65mm extension may work, but the longer the extension the more unhandy the entire rigg will become...

 

Here a table with deviations from "optimum" according to Nauticam and DreiFish:

 

I think I will give the 60mm extension a try for the first dive...

 

Wolfgang

Edited July 15, 20241 yr by Architeuthis

Looking forward to some test shots! 😉 

Awesome content here. Any reason with people prefer like Kenko 1.4x TC than Canon 1.4x TC?

14 minutes ago, stillviking said:

Awesome content here. Any reason with people prefer like Kenko 1.4x TC than Canon 1.4x TC?

Unfortunately, the Canon TCs are only designed to work with certain long lenses.  They will not attach to the 8-15.  The Kenko does not have this limitation. 

Edited August 22, 20241 yr by ChipBPhoto

7 minutes ago, ChipBPhoto said:

Unfortunately, the Canon TCs are only designed to work with certain long lenses.  They will not attach to the 8-15.  The Kenko does not have this limitation. 

Got it! However, Kenko works with latest Canon RF mirrorless bodies or we need to keep a DSLR?

1 hour ago, stillviking said:

Got it! However, Kenko works with latest Canon RF mirrorless bodies or we need to keep a DSLR?

As far as I know, it works fine as it’s just a EF pass through.  The 8-15 is an EF lens, so the Kenko attaches to it first.  The RF-EF adapter would then attach to the Kenko TC, and then to the RF body.  You would then need to get the appropriate extension(s) and zoom gear. 

I was able to use the Canon 8-15mm/Sony 2xTC on our last diving holidays in Murter/Croatia for 6 dives and can show some photos, for comparison (photos processed, slightly cropped and hughly reduced in size to allow posting here - I will put the full resolution, unprocessed photos in DPReview/UW Forum). The aim of the series is to compare the resolution/sharpness in the middle of the frame, because the fear is that this is greatly detoriated by the 2xTC..

Visibility was intermediate (I estimate approx. 15m-20m) with plenty of particles providing backscatter. I had Sony A7R5 in Nauticam housing, Nauticam domeport 140mm. Extension used was N120/35&25mm in addition to the N100/N120 35.5mm adapter:

 

#1.: A photo of a scorpionfish (Scorpaena scrofa). Canon8-15/2xTC @29.9mm, f/16, ISO400, 1/125s, 2*HF-1 (4500K flat diffusers):

 

#1a.: same photo, but 1:1 crop from the 61 Mpixel sensor and from the in focus region, to judge for details (possibly "swallowed" by the 2xTC):

 

 

#2.: Same fish was so kind to remain in position (😋), so I could zoom out and make another photo. Canon8-15/2xTC @15.9mm, f/16, ISO400, 1/125s, 2*HF-1 (4500K flat diffusers):

 

#2a.: same photo, 1:1 crop:

 

 

I also had the Sony 28-60mm/WACP-C combination with me, that I used more often on this trip. For comparison, I show here a photo from the same species, similar framing, taken on another day:

 

#3.: Sony 28-60mm @60mm, WACP-C with N100 30mm extension, f/16, ISO400, 1/125s, 2*HF-1 (4500K flat diffusers):

 

#3a.: same photo, 1:1 crop:

 

I will post another series of photos in a subsequent post to this tread...

 

Wolfgang

Edited October 7, 20241 yr by Architeuthis

Here another series of photos with Lisi. Canon 8-15mm/2xTC, Canon 8-15mm w/o TC and Sony 26-60mm/WACP-C are compared:

 

#1.: Canon8-15/2xTC @15.9mm, f/16, ISO400, 1/125s, 2*HF-1 (4500K flat diffusers):

 

#1a.: 1:1 crop:

 

 

#2.: Canon8-15(no TC) @15mm, f/13, ISO400, 1/100s, 2*HF-1 (4500K flat diffusers):

 

#2a.: 1:1 crop:

 

 

#3.: Sony 28-60mm @28mm, WACP-C with N100 30mm extension, f/11, ISO400, 1/100s, 2*HF-1 (4500K flat diffusers):

 

3a.: same photo, 1:1 crop:

 

 

 

I would say that the differences between Canon 8-15mm, Canon 8-15mm/2xTC and WACP-C are, at the best, subtile. For me subjectively, with regard to resolution and sharpness, the Canon 8-15 wins and Canon 8-15mm/2xTC and WACP-C are second place (pretty on par, WACP-C may be slightly better @28mm, while slightly worse @60mm, when compared to Canon 8-15mm/2xTC (Canon 8-15mm/2xTC seems to me more constant in IQ over the entire zoom range))...

=> For me, the Canon 8-15mm/2xTC is certainly an option for UW...

 

 => I am interested to hear how you judge the performance of the Sony 2xTC

 

Wolfgang

 

Edited October 7, 20241 yr by Architeuthis

Finally I managed to put the full resolution photos to DPReview. I had to split into three treads...😋

 

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4779356

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4779452

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4779455

 

Regarding the series of sample images that I posted recently, I have opened a poll in DPReview:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4781390

 

=> I greatly appreciate participation of people who take their time (the invitation for a beer is, of course, also valid in the waterpixel forum... 😋).

 

Wolfgang

Edited October 23, 20241 yr by Architeuthis