Hi guys, 

 

I have seen a couple of threads regarding wet lenses or wide angle, but not so much comparing these 2 solutions.

 

I am currently using an Sony PZ1020 on my Sony a6400 behind a Fantasea 6' dome.

Switching to Nauticam now and I am planning to buy a WWL-C or an WWL-1b. The alternative would be using the PZ1020 behind a 6inch Acrylic port from nauticam as before.

 

From what I heard, the Nauticam lenses have way more corner sharpeness and and of course more FOV.

 

I ask myself, will I like the look of those lenses? Especially compared to a traditional one with 110° FOV

 

What are the downsides of these wet lensens? E.g. how do they perform with big wreck shots and details on the wreck.

 

Do any of you maybe have some experiences on APS-C or examples of wreck shots?

 

 

Not quite a wreck, but here is a comparison shot of WWL-1, WACP-C, WACP-1 and a 16-35mm behind a 230mm dome:

 

https://web.facebook.com/NauticamThailand/posts/pfbid02Rx7a3XcKJzRSHnjVT9bx5G7XPVNBmVY1GpuxP24QNRqHCAAKpC6c4hbvWWYwvzn7l?_rdc=1&_rdr

 

If you're concerned about corner sharpness with 10-18mm/10-20mm, you could use a larger dome such as 180mm.

25 minutes ago, monkeybusiness said:

From what I heard, the Nauticam lenses have way more corner sharpeness and and of course more FOV.

 

I ask myself, will I like the look of those lenses? Especially compared to a traditional one with 110° FOV

 

What are the downsides of these wet lensens? E.g. how do they perform with big wreck shots and details on the wreck.

Great question!  I used a Tokina 10-17 fisheye on an APS-C system for many years.  I loved it!  I do mostly wreck and CFWA type images.  About 3 years ago I switched to a WWL-1B after hearing about the sharp corners and a 130 degree FoV, all while still having a nice zoom range.  I have been extremely happy with the results!

 

The only time I miss my true fisheye is if I am extremely close to a wreck and want a super wide 180 degree image.  That is relatively rare for me.  Having the zoom aspect and sharp corners, even at f/8 on an APS-C has more than made up for any downside by giving a much more expansive option of images with a single lens.  The close focus capability of the WWL is also a huge bonus!

 

Hope this helps! 
 

Edited February 28, 20241 yr by ChipBPhoto

33 minutes ago, ChipBPhoto said:

Great question!  I used a Tokina 10-17 fisheye on an APS-C system for many years.  I loved it!  I do mostly wreck and CFWA type images.  About 3 years ago I switched to a WWL-1B after hearing about the sharp corners and a 130 degree FoV, all while still having a nice zoom range.  I have been extremely happy with the results!

 

The only time I miss my true fisheye is if I am extremely close to a wreck and want a super wide 180 degree image.  That is relatively rare for me.  Having the zoom aspect and sharp corners, even at f/8 on an APS-C has more than made up for any downside by giving a much more expansive option of images with a single lens.  The close focus capability of the WWL is also a huge bonus!

 

Hope this helps! 
 

Thanks for the rapid answers!
Out of curiosity, is this also a Sony system? 

What i am currently not really looking into, is any extreme fisheye look, but i don't mind a little bit of distortion. Do you might have an example of your wreck pics?
Never did these 180°, i might not miss it 😃

I saw that the WWL-1B only offers 110° with the supported 16-50 lens, so i might consider the WWL-C which offers 124°.


To be clear about my "style" of pictures, here is an example that i have already uploaded, taken with the 1018: 

Edited February 28, 20241 yr by monkeybusiness
fixed image

19 minutes ago, Barmaglot said:

Not quite a wreck, but here is a comparison shot of WWL-1, WACP-C, WACP-1 and a 16-35mm behind a 230mm dome:

 

https://web.facebook.com/NauticamThailand/posts/pfbid02Rx7a3XcKJzRSHnjVT9bx5G7XPVNBmVY1GpuxP24QNRqHCAAKpC6c4hbvWWYwvzn7l?_rdc=1&_rdr

 

If you're concerned about corner sharpness with 10-18mm/10-20mm, you could use a larger dome such as 180mm.

 Thx for sharing. What i see on your example is, that there is kinda a fisheye effect right? Would be curious how the WWL-C performs there. 

18 minutes ago, monkeybusiness said:

 Thx for sharing. What i see on your example is, that there is kinda a fisheye effect right? Would be curious how the WWL-C performs there. 

Yes, all wet lenses currently available on the market give you significant barrel distortion ("fisheye effect"). WWL-C, AFAIK, is identical to WWL-1 in this regard. On wildlife images it is fine and often even desirable; on wrecks, it's a matter of personal taste - some people don't mind it, others prefer keeping straight lines straight.

 

To me, the corners of your 10-20mm image look just fine - I mean, it's just sand and rubble there, who cares? - but if you want to improve them, a bigger dome would help. Another option is to use manual focusing to shift the focus point closer to the camera - as I understand it, autofocus is biased towards putting more DoF behind your focus point (I've seen figures of 2/3 behind 1/3 in front), which further degrades your corners. Using manual focus can alter this behavior, although looking at Nauticam's port chart, there is no native option for it - I suppose that if you use an N85 to N120 port adapter with knob (as they specify for the 180mm glass dome), you could print your own gear to connect the focus ring to the adapter knob, while zoom ring is connected to the housing's knob.

Edited February 28, 20241 yr by Barmaglot

1 hour ago, Barmaglot said:

Yes, all wet lenses currently available on the market give you significant barrel distortion ("fisheye effect"). WWL-C, AFAIK, is identical to WWL-1 in this regard. On wildlife images it is fine and often even desirable; on wrecks, it's a matter of personal taste - some people don't mind it, others prefer keeping straight lines straight.

 

To me, the corners of your 10-20mm image look just fine - I mean, it's just sand and rubble there, who cares? - but if you want to improve them, a bigger dome would help. Another option is to use manual focusing to shift the focus point closer to the camera - as I understand it, autofocus is biased towards putting more DoF behind your focus point (I've seen figures of 2/3 behind 1/3 in front), which further degrades your corners. Using manual focus can alter this behavior, although looking at Nauticam's port chart, there is no native option for it - I suppose that if you use an N85 to N120 port adapter with knob (as they specify for the 180mm glass dome), you could print your own gear to connect the focus ring to the adapter knob, while zoom ring is connected to the housing's knob.

Okay thanx. But yea of course this is not a great examnullple, as I just learned a bit to avoid them.

Here are some more pictures to compare, the P29 wreck (the one above) as well as the turtle and canyon are shot with the SEL1018, mostly F9. The turtle e.g. was a time where i did not know how to avoid those on the 1018. Even after editing I am really unhappy with the corner sharpness.

SEL1018:



 

 

PZ1020:

 

Comparing with the PZ1020, its generally better even in the same 6' dome. *not a final edit*

 

DSC01851.ARW

 

 

 

And an unedited raw with my beautifully scratched old dome, PZ1020,@ 10mmf11. Keep in mind that the vignetting is due to an too big extension ring, there is no shorter one for Fantasea.

DSC01971.ARW

Edited February 28, 20241 yr by monkeybusiness

20 minutes ago, monkeybusiness said:

Okay thanx. But yea of course this is not a great examnullple, as I just learned a bit to avoid them.

Here are some more pictures to compare, the P29 wreck (the one above) as well as the turtle and canyon are shot with the SEL1018, mostly F9. The turtle e.g. was a time where i did not know how to avoid those on the 1018. Even after editing I am really unhappy with the corner sharpness.


 

 

 

 

Comparing with the PZ1020, its generally better even in the same 6' dome. *not a final edit*

 

 

And an unedited raw with my beautifully scratched old dome, PZ1020,@ 10mmf11:
DSC01971.ARW

So back to my question: 
- Corner sharpness is okayish with the 1020 at f11 behind a 6' dome, as long as i am not using lens correction (see the raws). -> Depending on your feedback
- Yes i have a significant "barrel" distortion with the WWL-C at ~124°. Maybe not so much at 110° (as the 1020). But on the other hand, the image quality could be way better when close to the ground(?)
- To the suggestion about the bigger dome: I thought about that, while I would even go with a bigger dome (dont see any in the port charts) I question myself if that not defeats the point in having a rather compact setup. But yea, if you by any chance know an acrylic port that might fit, its a consideration

 

Edited February 28, 20241 yr by monkeybusiness

2 hours ago, ChipBPhoto said:

Great question!  I used a Tokina 10-17 fisheye on an APS-C system for many years.  I loved it!  I do mostly wreck and CFWA type images.  About 3 years ago I switched to a WWL-1B after hearing about the sharp corners and a 130 degree FoV, all while still having a nice zoom range.  I have been extremely happy with the results!

 

The only time I miss my true fisheye is if I am extremely close to a wreck and want a super wide 180 degree image.  That is relatively rare for me.  Having the zoom aspect and sharp corners, even at f/8 on an APS-C has more than made up for any downside by giving a much more expansive option of images with a single lens.  The close focus capability of the WWL is also a huge bonus!

 

Hope this helps! 
 

Just out of curiosity: could you compare, at similar AOV, the IQ in the center and also the sharpness in the edges between Tokina and WWL (at which f stops are the corners comparable)?

 

39 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

Just out of curiosity: could you compare, at similar AOV, the IQ in the center and also the sharpness in the edges between Tokina and WWL (at which f stops are the corners comparable)?

Pete Atkinson did a mini-test of that a few years back, on a Nikon Z50, comparing a Sigma 8-16, WWL-C on 16-50Z and a Tokina 10-17mm.

 

https://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?/topic/67658-angle-of-view-comparison-wwl-c-and-16-50z-with-sigma-8-16-nauticam-85-dome

25 minutes ago, Barmaglot said:

Pete Atkinson did a mini-test of that a few years back, on a Nikon Z50, comparing a Sigma 8-16, WWL-C on 16-50Z and a Tokina 10-17mm.

 

https://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?/topic/67658-angle-of-view-comparison-wwl-c-and-16-50z-with-sigma-8-16-nauticam-85-dome

The second image is the Wwl-c?

Looks kinda good regarding distortion.

 

Also, i just saw that there is even a special flat port just for the sel16-50 and the wet lenses fro. Ääm Nauticam:

-> instead oft the 45 port, there is also an 40 port o_O.

 

Edited February 28, 20241 yr by monkeybusiness

10 hours ago, monkeybusiness said:

Hi guys, 

 

I have seen a couple of threads regarding wet lenses or wide angle, but not so much comparing these 2 solutions.

 

I am currently using an Sony PZ1020 on my Sony a6400 behind a Fantasea 6' dome.

Switching to Nauticam now and I am planning to buy a WWL-C or an WWL-1b. The alternative would be using the PZ1020 behind a 6inch Acrylic port from nauticam as before.

 

 

A 6"dome is really a little small for a rectilinear lens that wide even on APS-C.  The 6"dome from Fantasea is not a full 180° dome so the geometry likely means the lens entrance pupil is positioned forward of the dome centre of curvature to avoid vignetting so is not optimal.  A bigger dome helps of course but the largest offered by Nauticam is the 180mm dome.  You could use the 8.5"acrylic dome and it seems to use 10-15mm more extension than the 180mm dome.

 

Focusing closer has also been mentioned you don't need Manual focus to do that, just use back button focus to focus on something closer in the scene and stopping down to the f11-13 range will also help your corners.

 

As far as distortion goes, all the wet lenses have some level of distortion probably best handled by where you place straight lines in the composition, they bend more as you go towards the corners of course, so for example the image DSC01971 you posted above would have obvious distortion with those straight lines top and bottom of frame.

7 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

A 6"dome is really a little small for a rectilinear lens that wide even on APS-C.  The 6"dome from Fantasea is not a full 180° dome so the geometry likely means the lens entrance pupil is positioned forward of the dome centre of curvature to avoid vignetting so is not optimal.  A bigger dome helps of course but the largest offered by Nauticam is the 180mm dome.  You could use the 8.5"acrylic dome and it seems to use 10-15mm more extension than the 180mm dome.

 

Focusing closer has also been mentioned you don't need Manual focus to do that, just use back button focus to focus on something closer in the scene and stopping down to the f11-13 range will also help your corners.

 

As far as distortion goes, all the wet lenses have some level of distortion probably best handled by where you place straight lines in the composition, they bend more as you go towards the corners of course, so for example the image DSC01971 you posted above would have obvious distortion with those straight lines top and bottom of frame.

Thanks for sharing!

Apart from the vignetting though, dsc01971 looks quite sharp right? (Pz1020, 6' dome) But I see your point, 6' is a very small dome. The 8.5 that i found is n120. So yea maybe with an adaptor.

 

What I wonder though is if the 1018 maybe performs better, because it has an 7' Port from nauticam. In general the 1018 is not super sharp  in the edges even top side.

But going for the 1018 with 7' instead of 1020 6' could be an option.

 

Curious if anybody here uses the 1018 behind the 7'? 

 

Currently prefering the wwl-c, even its way more money and i have both lensens flying around. Maybe i get used to the distortion.

Edited February 29, 20241 yr by monkeybusiness

Aside from being cumbersome and expensive, is there any reason why a 230mm dome couldn't be used with either 10-18mm or 10-20mm?

2 minutes ago, Barmaglot said:

Aside from being cumbersome and expensive, is there any reason why a 230mm dome couldn't be used with either 10-18mm or 10-20mm?

 

I would not have thought so. Great for over/unders!

9 minutes ago, TimG said:

 

I would not have thought so. Great for over/unders!

I mean, it's not featured on Nauticam's charts, so there's gotta be some reason they left it out. It's possible that they consider the 230mm or 250mm domes too large for the typical APS-C users, or there could be some physical barrier.

 

Looking at other manufacturers, Isotta doesn't have any domes larger than 8" (which they do recommend for 10-18mm), Aquatica charts are almost nonexistent and Ikelite also tops out at 8". Sea & Sea don't have any Sony crop housings, but for some reason they do have SEL1018 on their system chart, with a range of port options including their 230mm dome (with 20mm extension). Easydive seem to list every dome they have as compatible with both 10-18mm and 10-20mm, from 95mm microdome to 230mm glass and 240mm acrylic, but only 125mm and 160mm domes are marked as 'recommended'.

1 hour ago, monkeybusiness said:

Thanks for sharing!

Apart from the vignetting though, dsc01971 looks quite sharp right? (Pz1020, 6' dome) But I see your point, 6' is a very small dome. The 8.5 that i found is n120. So yea maybe with an adaptor.

 

What I wonder though is if the 1018 maybe performs better, because it has an 7' Port from nauticam. In general the 1018 is not super sharp  in the edges even top side.

But going for the 1018 with 7' instead of 1020 6' could be an option.

 

Curious if anybody here uses the 1018 behind the 7'? 

 

Currently prefering the wwl-c, even its way more money and i have both lensens flying around. Maybe i get used to the distortion.

The 7"dome port is quite big and floaty, I've seen one or two in the field, it may improve things a little but hard to be sure.  You could use a 230mm dome, Nauticam probably haven't tested it for Sony APS-C probably because it dwarfs the housing.  You just have to work out how much extension to use.  As far as the 10-18 performing better if it's not so good topside it can only go one way in a dome UW and that is down (worse). 

 

You could also likely use the 7"dome with the 10-20 provided it's long enough, the 7"dome has quite a bit of extension built in.  If the 10-20 is the same length or  longer than the 10-18 you should be able to use it in the 7"dome, if the 10-20 lens is shorter it would possibly vignette. 

 

Regarding the DSC01971 I basically used that of an example of composition which would not work so well with barrel distortion as the straight beam across the top would bow outwards you could correct some or all of it in post processing but you might need to leave space for cropping as the software bends the corners outwards.  It certainly seems sharp enough except the far corners.  I don't have a feel for how noticeable it would be with a WWL, but a fisheye would certainly show it.  Have a look at what the distortion is like with the Canon 8-15 on a door frame here:

 

The WWL would be somewhere between the 8mm and the 15mm view  of the door frame, probably slightly closer to the 15mm view than the 8mm view.

This is taken with the WACP-1 (same characteristics as the WWL-1 or WWL-C). As you can see, you get some "fisheye" (barrel) distortion on the corners. Whether it matters for wreck shots depends on your composition.

 

 

For comparison, this is the Canon 8-15 at 15mm, to see how extreme the fisheye effect can be inside a wreck. But it all depends on composition.