19 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

=> It turns out that for my needs two setups (Canon 8-15mm/2xTC and Sony 100mm+/-MFO-3+/-SMC-1 (I am considering now to acquire a double flip holder 😄)) cover the range, with substantial overlap in the fish portrait/moderate macro range.

Curious to hear what you think...

Hey Wolfgang,

Thanks for sharing! First, as all have seen I enjoy and primarily use the Nauticam optics such as the WACP and WWL. With that said, I also use a Canon 8-15 with the Sony 2x TC for something a bit wider when needed. While I personally find the Sony 28-60 behind the optics to be a faster and more consistent focus lock due to the 8-15 having to negotiate both the adapter and TC, I have been equally pleased with the image quality of both. This is especially true now with the modern software that allows a little tightening of the images in post as needed.

The macro images have a sharper feel and are also excellent.

I agree that this exercise shows there is a great deal of overlap which provides terrific flexibility in a single dive with today's options. It ultimately comes back to using the right tool for the right job as the best strategy whenever possible. We just do not have to be quite as singularly range limited as we have been in the past.

Again, thanks for illustrating the options!

chip

Thanks for your efforts Wolfgang. Interesting read! You can see that there are some degradation made by the TC:s to the fisheye zoom, so they have a little worse starting point than a "clean" lens. But very little it looks like. And then you'd be putting everything behind a dome (be it glass, acrylic or a correction port) and then we go into the water which seldom is gin clear (a FE will get you a little closer and that inme will have a greater effect on sharpness and contrast than a "perfect" lens that is narrower). Cheers.

Edited Monday at 03:10 PM2 days by Christian K

On 10/7/2026 at 11:33 AM, ChipBPhoto said:

Hey Wolfgang,

Thanks for sharing! First, as all have seen I enjoy and primarily use the Nauticam optics such as the WACP and WWL. With that said, I also use a Canon 8-15 with the Sony 2x TC for something a bit wider when needed. While I personally find the Sony 28-60 behind the optics to be a faster and more consistent focus lock due to the 8-15 having to negotiate both the adapter and TC, I have been equally pleased with the image quality of both. This is especially true now with the modern software that allows a little tightening of the images in post as needed.

The macro images have a sharper feel and are also excellent.

I agree that this exercise shows there is a great deal of overlap which provides terrific flexibility in a single dive with today's options. It ultimately comes back to using the right tool for the right job as the best strategy whenever possible. We just do not have to be quite as singularly range limited as we have been in the past.

Again, thanks for illustrating the options!

chip

I fully agree (similar IQ, a tad better in dim light with WACP-C). At home I can easily choose bewteen Canon 8-15m/2x TC and WACP-C/Sony 28-60mmm.

Problem starts when air travelling. Then I have to decide wich one of these two to take with me, then I always decide for the fisheye...

53 minutes ago, Christian K said:

Thanks for your efforts Wolfgang. Interesting read! You can see that there are some degradation made by the TC:s to the fisheye zoom, so they have a little worse starting point than a "clean" lens. But very little it looks like. And then you'd be putting everything behind a dome (be it glass, acrylic or a correction port) and then we go into the water which seldom is gin clear (a FE will get you a little closer and that inme will have a greater effect on sharpness and contrast than a "perfect" lens that is narrower). Cheers.

It may be a similar situation to Tokina 10-17mm on APS-C: IQ bad over the water, but UW not really worse compared to excellent lenses behind domeport.

Another consideration is comparison to Nauticam's FCP-1: I never used FCP and cannot say from own experince, but the big shots here say FCP is not as sharp overall compared to WACP-C. I conclude that, optically, FCP cannot be better compared to Canon 8-15mm/2xTC, maybe it is even worse.

Maybe similar AF advantage as WACP has over f/8 of Canon 8-15mm/2xTC. But then focus shift issues might occur when, after focusing, aperture is closing from wide open to f/13, or even more, to achieve good corners (when focusing already at f/13, AF is likely also not so good in dim light)...

7 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

I fully agree (similar IQ, a tad better in dim light with WACP-C). At home I can easily choose bewteen Canon 8-15m/2x TC and WACP-C/Sony 28-60mmm.

Problem starts when air travelling. Then I have to decide wich one of these two to take with me, then I always decide for the fisheye...

If you decide you want both on a trip, consider picking up a WWL-1B. Basically the same quality as the rest, with the faster focus and greater zoom range of the WACP-C in a smaller, more travel friendly size. I planned on selling my WWL when I picked up the C, but it has been nice to have both for that reason.

Edited yesterday at 08:46 AM1 day by ChipBPhoto