With the news that the S&S correction lens may be staging a come back, @Phil Rudin suggested we start a thread for it. Good idea, Phil!

 

 

 Interceptor121 85

Posted yesterday at 01:09 PM · IP 

 

•  

I think this kind of solution is expensive and not effective

In many cases poor performance is due to lenses focussing too far requiring domes too large or even more common incorrect calculations of the position of the dome

I have not had an issue with edges moving from MFT to full frame the key is to choose the right lens

 

•  
• Quote

 TimG 390

Posted yesterday at 01:47 PM · IP 

 

•  

I've got no personal experience of the S&S but I seem to remember a number of folks using them and being happy with the results especially, if I recall right, using lenses like the Nikkor F 16-35 and Z 14-30. 

 

Good though you've had no issues.  Good choice on those lenses!

•  
•  
• Quote

 Phil Rudin 69

Posted 1 hour ago · IP 

 

•  

I agree with 121 that proper port size and extension length are required for best corner results and of course full frame suffers more than sub full frame given the same F/number. However I have done a number of tests using like equipment, example Tamron 17-28mm and Sony FE 16-35mm PZ in 180mm dome with and without the S&S conversion lens and the S&S always bests the native lens by at least one stop. I have also used the S&S lens on fixed lenses like Zeiss Batis 18mm with similar results.

 

I also agree with 121 bout minimum focus the Sony 16-35 PZ minimum is 24cm, Tamron 17-28 is 19cm and the Sigma 17mm F/4 has a minimum focus of 12cm. For wide rectilinear I would chose the Sigma 17mm over the other two even without the S&S because of the close focus. It is outstanding in a 180mm port but I have also used it in a 140mm port because it can focus closer than most fisheye lenses. 

 

To get a one stop increase for $600.00ish is the question and it appears that several have found this worth the cost especially if the alternative is an expensive water contact lens.

 

The second issue is if you are on team rectilinear or on team fisheye. Many would rather just go fisheye to reduce corner issues.

 

Image is the Sigma 17mm F/4 in the 140mm dome port at F/11 with the port glass touching the pool light glass, A/V light.

 

 

 

 

 

•  
•  
• Quote

 

When I am using my Nikon 14-30 f4 at f11 - f16 with the recommended setup (Dome and extension ring) I still get an anoying blur edges.  I have not yet figured out what will happen when I focus slightly before the subject and not directly on it. 

In contrast, if I am following a moving object, I will always focus on the subject. 
I have read good reviews about the Sea&Sea lens for improving this issue. 

Edited March 4, 20241 yr by Ido

1 hour ago, Ido said:

When I am using my Nikon 14-30 f4 at f11 - f16 with the recommended setup (Dome and extension ring) I still get an anoying blur edges.  I have not yet figured out what will happen when I focus slightly before the subject and not directly on it. 

In contrast, if I am following a moving object, I will always focus on the subject. 
I have read good reviews about the Sea&Sea lens for improving this issue. 

Your dome is small and possibly not in the right position

The corrector which sea and sea was doing is predominantly correcting the coma that gets generated by result

I would recommend you look for a more performing lens because you are adding cost on cost and at the end you will still have problems

19 hours ago, TimG said:

 

 Interceptor121 85

Posted yesterday at 01:09 PM · IP 

 

•  

I think this kind of solution is expensive and not effective

In many cases poor performance is due to lenses focussing too far requiring domes too large or even more common incorrect calculations of the position of the dome

I have not had an issue with edges moving from MFT to full frame the key is to choose the right lens

 

•  
• Quote

 

 TimG 390

Posted yesterday at 01:47 PM · IP 

 

•  

I've got no personal experience of the S&S but I seem to remember a number of folks using them and being happy with the results especially, if I recall right, using lenses like the Nikkor F 16-35 and Z 14-30. 

 

Good though you've had no issues.  Good choice on those lenses!

•  
•  
• Quote

 

 Phil Rudin 69

Posted 1 hour ago · IP 

 

•  

I agree with 121 that proper port size and extension length are required for best corner results and of course full frame suffers more than sub full frame given the same F/number. However I have done a number of tests using like equipment, example Tamron 17-28mm and Sony FE 16-35mm PZ in 180mm dome with and without the S&S conversion lens and the S&S always bests the native lens by at least one stop. I have also used the S&S lens on fixed lenses like Zeiss Batis 18mm with similar results.

 

I also agree with 121 bout minimum focus the Sony 16-35 PZ minimum is 24cm, Tamron 17-28 is 19cm and the Sigma 17mm F/4 has a minimum focus of 12cm. For wide rectilinear I would chose the Sigma 17mm over the other two even without the S&S because of the close focus. It is outstanding in a 180mm port but I have also used it in a 140mm port because it can focus closer than most fisheye lenses. 

 

To get a one stop increase for $600.00ish is the question and it appears that several have found this worth the cost especially if the alternative is an expensive water contact lens.

 

The second issue is if you are on team rectilinear or on team fisheye. Many would rather just go fisheye to reduce corner issues.

 

Image is the Sigma 17mm F/4 in the 140mm dome port at F/11 with the port glass touching the pool light glass, A/V light.

 

 

 

 

 

•  
•  
• Quote

 

 

How did you perform those comparisons? I use always the same test scene in order to avoid bias in the testing process itself

On 3/4/2024 at 5:51 PM, Interceptor121 said:

Your dome is small and possibly not in the right position

 

How do you know that my dome is small and not in the right position ?

I take shots with 6.5 and 8 inch domes with the appropriate extensions rings. I believe that  larger domes it will give me results, However the setup that I use is the recommended one by Isotta for this lens. 

7 hours ago, Ido said:

How do you know that my dome is small and not in the right position ?

I take shots with 6.5 and 8 inch domes with the appropriate extensions rings. I believe that  larger domes it will give me results, However the setup that I use is the recommended one by Isotta for this lens. 

Dome is small-> lens focuses at 28cm lens entrance pupil 11 cm from focal plane. Minimum ideal dome radius 17cm. Isotta radius 10cm. Delta 7cm large number-> blurry edges
Position of the dome I said possibly but at the end this lens just focusses too far and is not really a good candidate for underwater use

Look for lenses that focus at 20cm

Is a 20cm close focusing distance the ideal across all domeports?  If so, that's a pretty useful rule of thumb.

5 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

Dome is small-> lens focuses at 28cm lens entrance pupil 11 cm from focal plane. Minimum ideal dome radius 17cm. Isotta radius 10cm. Delta 7cm large number-> blurry edges
Position of the dome I said possibly but at the end this lens just focusses too far and is not really a good candidate for underwater use

Look for lenses that focus at 20cm

Seems there is a grand total of one lens in this class that focuses that close, the Nikon Z 17-28, all the other Z and F lenses focus at either 280 or 290 mm apart the F mount Sigma art 12-24 f4 which gets down to 240mm.  But a 17mm is a  somewhat narrower field.  I would be playing with the fisheye in your 6"dome to see how you go before shelling out more cash. 

Having said all that there are lots of people somewhat happily shooting with 16-35 class lenses that focus around 280mm in 230mm dome ports and using the S&S correction lens while reporting good results.  The S&S lenses are meniscus lenses which are commonly used as field flatteners in other applications.

Isotta have a rather naive approach to recommended port sizes, they also recommend the much larger 9" (228mm) for the 14mm zooms which I am sure would preform much better than the 6.5 or 8 inch domes.

 

Isotta at this time does not appear to support the Z 17-28mm which focuses to 19cm and looks quite like the Tamron 17-28mm so should do well behind the 8" dome.

 

One of the advantages of mirrorless is the adaptability of none brand lenses like the new (coming in April) Laowa 10mm F/2.8 which focuses to 12cm for Nikon Z and the ability to mount lenses for Sony FE using an adapter. A good choice with the Nikon Z to Sony FE adapter might be the Rokinon 14mm F/2.8 which focuses to 20cm. I chose examples of auto focus fixed lenses because you would not need to deal with a custom zoom gear, only choosing a proper port/extension combination.   

 

Quite a few Nikon Z owners are using the  adapted Sony FE 28-70 with WACP-lenses.  

Hi Phil, 

 

It is true Isotta's port charts list the options but don't say which is the optimum image-quality solution for each lens, which would be better, but that is easy to find out when purchasing form a dealer. (I think naïve is not a fair description.)

 

The same thing seems common practice with other manufacturers. From what I can see, Marelux lists their 7 inch and 9 inch domes as being suitable for wide rectilinear lenses. They even have a 5.5 inch fisheye port listed for the Nikon 14-24 F mount lens (minimum focus 28cm at 18-24mm), but not 14-24 Z mount (minimum focus 28cm at all zoom positions) along with the 7 inch and 9 inch domes, but no information on which is optimum.

 

 

 

I agree that Isotta is not the only manufacture that lists smaller ports for very wide rectilinear lenses like 12 and 14mm zooms and fixed lenses. I think the issue is that for several reasons many photographers don't want the expense, travel issues and more of using ports like 230 and 250mm. Many of those folks understand the tradeoffs of smaller domes V. corner sharpness and using higher F/numbers. 

 

I think all manufactures should explain this and manage expectations for smaller ports with very wide lenses otherwise way would anyone buy larger ports. It seems that around 17mm is the benchmark for ports in the 170mm range using the proper extension. 

On 3/6/2024 at 8:43 AM, Interceptor121 said:

Dome is small-> lens focuses at 28cm lens entrance pupil 11 cm from focal plane. Minimum ideal dome radius 17cm. Isotta radius 10cm. Delta 7cm large number-> blurry edges
Position of the dome I said possibly but at the end this lens just focusses too far and is not really a good candidate for underwater use

Look for lenses that focus at 20cm

Thanks for sharing this useful information.  I have the Nikon 8-15 fisheye. I use it only as a 15mm fisheye. I have

the convenient 4.5 inch dome and the 6.5 and 8 dome. The bigger is the batter for this lens....?

Edited March 7, 20241 yr by Ido

The 8-15 focuses close and will work with any dome. However very small dome that are suited for cfwa may not be overall the best option

6-6.5 should be a good compromise

Thanks

As I was optimistic, I asked our friends at Sea&Sea if there had been any updates. Here is the response.

 

 

 Hello Ido,

Our parts supplier has been closed since covid-19 pandemic.
We had been searching for another supplier in Japan.
When upgraded version is launched, we will inform you an official web site, FB and Instagram.

We are terribly sorry for your inconvenience.

We will keep you updated.

sincerely

Kaz Okada
International Sales
Sea & Sea Co., Ltd.
2F,4-8-11 Nagasaki, Toshima-ku, Tokyo 171-0051 Japan
Tel: 81-3-5926-9320
Mob:81-80-3276-7203

Edited October 8, 20241 yr by Ido

52 minutes ago, Ido said:

Our parts supplier has been closed since covid-19 pandemic.

 

Thanks Ido

 

I guess they are not going to re-open then!

 

You have to wonder whether this lens is ever going to return to the market. A pity.

7 hours ago, TimG said:

You have to wonder whether this lens is ever going to return to the market. A pity.

 

Good news for second hand values, though. Hype it up a bit and cash in!

I have one for a Canon 17-40L wide zoom. I’ve noticed better corner sharpness when using it. However I rarely shoot that lens, usually grabbing the fisheye instead. (Still using Sigma 15mm.)