All Activity

It is the Sony 20-70mm f/4 G lens. It is not of the highest optical quality (Sony labels such lenses with "GM"), but is regarded a decent performer... Here you can find serious over-water reviews of both Sony 20-70mm and the Canon 8-15mm. The reviews state that both lenses are very sharp (but one cannot directly compare the absolute values in lp/mm, since the Canon values were measured on a completely different camera/sensor): https://www.lenstip.com/643.1-Lens_review-Sony_FE_20-70_mm_f_4_G_Introduction.html https://www.lenstip.com/311.1-Lens_review-Canon_EF_8-15_mm_f_4_L_Fisheye_USM_Introduction.html My "ratings" of the UW performance of different lens/port/water contact optics combinations are based on dozends, sometimes hundreds of dives and are completely subjective. No test carts and/or measurements, motifs and conditions are always different. It is a pity that the companies that develop and sell domeports and water contact optics do not make their measurements/test chart photos, that they certainly have, accessible to the potential customers (I suspect they have reasons)... Here links to some UW photos I made with Sony 20-70mm and some other combinations discussed here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/sample-photos-from-sony-20-70mm-f-4-and-a7r5-uw.4724115/ https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/canon-8-15mm-fisheye-lens-with-sony-2x-tc-on-sony-a7r5-sample-photos-part-1.4779356/ https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/canon-8-15mm-fisheye-lens-with-sony-2x-tc-on-sony-a7r5-sample-photos-part-2.4779452/ https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/canon-8-15mm-fisheye-lens-with-sony-2x-tc-on-sony-a7r5-sample-photos-part-3.4779455/ No, I never used them. I could spot several WACP-1s at UW photography workshops and immediately was sure that I do not want to deal with such big staff (I find the "compact" WACP-C version already big and heavy enough)...

Very interesting Wolfgang, even though I am not a Sony User but this would supports the initial thesis of a very good air based „exit-glas“ (lens) bringing the right photons to the table 😉 Could you specify with a link which Sony 20-70 exactly you mean? Also interesting that you consider the 8-15mm a slightly less sharp performer. Have you ever used/tested WACP-1 oder WACP-2, Wolfgang and an impression on that one to compare?

Apprecaite all the advice! I will definitely make sure my camera setup and DPV and independently neutrally buoyant. They are big fish by my standards: 2-3ft (1m) in length. Planning on shooting from the scooter and also to detach and shoot but really not sure how easy it will be, how the fish will react, etc., but training should help with calmly removing the camera and re-attaching it. Based on my experience with other fish I tend to think they won't mind much but only time will tell...nothing with animals every goes accoding to plan. Typically I've shot fish with the WACP-1, I love sharp wide angle and that's my favorite lens but it's very hefty and not hydrodynamic so trying to understand how realistic it would be to use it before getting in the water and testing in the coming weeks. I guess anything will move through the water if you try hard enough :)

Macro port is pending, zoom gear and lens still available.

I'll try once more locally, if this one breaks as well then I'll consider other options. I'm not very confident the local people have their printer settings correct 😅

I think you originally mentioned photographing fish, I would think perhaps that might be the starting point - are they big fish or small fish? what sort of focal length do you need? If they are smaller a short macro lens might work, though Canon doesn't have one for full frame. If they are bigger perhaps a 24-105 behind an 180mm dome or the Zen 170mm dome but that's only marginally smaller than an 8"dome. A macro lens would the most streamlined option of course with a flat port. Would a 60mm equivalent macro work? you could do that with a 100mm macro and MFO3. You could also try a 24-105 behind a 140mm dome. The 24-105 is on the port chart with the 180mm dome, but not the 170mm or 140mm. The 140mm and 230mm domes use the same extension. The lens extends a long way at max zoom so may hit the dome glass in smaller domes. With the 140mm dome the corners might be pretty bad between 24 and 30 to 35mm zoom. If photographing fish my main concern would be that if you need to fluff around to remove the camera from the scooter and then stow the scooter the fish might disappear in the mean time so shooting with camera on scooter might be the best option unless you travel to an area detach and search for targets without the scooter.

I have the same monitor and I use the cold shoe on top of my housing with a long clamp. On my previous jousing I had a 10Bar crossbar but I had to change the 1" ball mounts on the housing.

I just use a single standard clamp to the third ball mount on my housing, but it looks as if yours has two "inner" ball mounts. I have a braided handle that attaches via shackles to the holes on the back of that upper plate.

Hi Rustico, Welcome aboard!

M43 user here. I used the 7-14 mm and 6" dome or 14-42 mm and WWL-1. Regardless of the lens/dome combination used the most important thing is a neutral buoyancy camera setup. Of course, a large dome will create more drag. It depends on the scooter too... 😉

Aloha and welcome @DrewK !

Is there any sort of mounting point on the back of the monitor? Or I guess to short float arms to a triple clamp could work. Just trying to think of ways which then don't need even more flotation to compensate for.

Update I can confirm that Extension #48462 (39.5mm) is the correct extension for the Nikon Z 14-30mm f/4 using Port #18414 on an Aquatica AZ8. The sharpness was as expected at the edges at f4 and f8 with no vignette.

I certainly could look at attaching. A rigid float arm to the centre of the rig and then the monitor above, if that's what you mean. The monitor is negative 260g, which I can compensate for quite easily. I think I need to play about with the few ideas, but that may very well work. Thanks

This is a situation where some sort of mount fabricated to fit on a rigid float arm might be an option, especially since the monitor is quite negative. How much freedom of movement do you need?

The initial statement “You cannot improve a lens’s in-air optical performance underwater.” is clear and true, but exceptions exist... (The Tokina 10-17mm fisheye lens behind a domeport, e.g., performs clearly better UW compared to the performance at the surface (especially when used together with a 0.71x speedbooster)...) Are optical jewels automatically performing better compared to, average quality, kit lenses for UW WA? Certainly not. Too many factors that ruin IQ UW ... An UW WA setup that would provide the idential optical quality, as an average kit lens provides on the surface, would be a true gem and a favorite for all of us... Already in the center the sharpness is diminished, just by the water (absorption and diffraction of the light), even when it is clear, not to speak about bad vis, to an extend that goes below the standards we are used on the surface. Not to speak about the corners that never can be sharp when using a domeport (or water contact optics) and the unpleasant distortions that (mostly rectilinear) lenses produce away from the center... The question is rather: what system, in combination, gives the least impaired results (lens/domeport combination, fisheye lens (with and w/o TCs), water contact optics/lens combination)? The lens itself is certainly a contributing factor, but it must not be overrated: A high quality WA lens that does not perform well behind a domeport can not reach the IQ of a kit lens in compination with water contact optics (e.g. because of a field curvature that is opposite to the curvature of the virtual image produced by the domeport; entrance pupil that makes correct positioning difficult). Another example is a 180° diagonal fisheye lens that, just because of the shortest object distance and hence minimal IQ detoriation produced by the water, gives way sharper images compared to a lens with considerably larger object distance... Only with lenses that work very well together with a domeport and in very clear waters one may be able to see differences that come from the lens itself. In my personal experience, the Sony 20-70mm and Tokina 17-28mm (Sony FF) and the Zuiko 12-40mm pro (Oly MTF), all behind Zen DP170, perform very well UW and give (subjectively) sharper images compared to Sony 28-60mm/WACP-C (FF), but only when conditions are at their best. The pure Canon 8-15mm fisheye comes close in sharpness to the Sony 20-70mm/DP170, but when used with TCs (Kenko 1.4x Teleplus HD pro DGX or Sony 2x TC) IQ is comparable to 28-60mm/WACP-C... As far as I know, none of these lenses provides the highest optical standards on the surface, but the Sony 28-60mm kit lens is certainly the least performing lens of them and a league below the others (Chip reports, however, that 28-60mm gives better results with WACP-1, hence 28-60mm/WACP-C is not the last rung in the ladder)... Wolfgang

Hi All, I have recently bought a Weefine WED 5 Pro from Alex Tattershall - UWvisions (excellent service) and I'm looking for ideas of the best way to attach it to my housing. I have a cross bar, which I bought ages ago but it's too big and doesn't fit. Can anyone recommend a cross bar that would allow me to fit it to the housing but still use the nauticam fabric handle? The photo attached is just for illitration and I won't be attaching like this in future. I have thought either a cross bar or 2 small arms with a triple ball mount. Thanks John

When the discussion comes to Kenko TCs for Canon EF mount, one must say that there exist TWO versions of both 1.4x and 2x TC: the "Teleplus HD DGX" and the "Teleplus HD pro DGX"... I have the Kenko Teleplus HD DGX 2x TC version and used it few times with the Canon 8-15mm on Sony A7R5. Unfortunately, the IQ suffers a lot with this TC (too much for my taste). In comparison the Kenko Teleplus HD pro DGX 1.4x TC works very well with this fisheye lens (for me and that is what also several others reported here)... I do not own the Teleplus HD pro DGX 2x TC, but in the tread linked below, Massimo ("guest") has tested it and found that it worked very well (maybe comparable to the Sony 2x TC, that can be used on Sony cameras together with the Canon 8-15mm with sufficient quality):

Be interesting to see some comparison images especially with the RF 2x.

How big of a consideration is the lens choice when mounting the camera to the DPV or does it not make much of a difference? Can anyone share some of the lessons they've learned or how much consideration I should give to lens choice. Figured I would ask before I started testing in the water in a week or two. In an ideal world I would use the WACP-1 but that might requrie too much bouyancy and drag to be practical. Unfortuately my Nauticam 5dMiii housing cannot use a WWL, otherwise that would be my primary choice. I already have a 8" dome but could pick up a smaller dome if it would be a lot more practical.

Hello! I am a rusty diver based in the Philippines and am looking to getting back into underwater imaging. I’m drawn to capturing things from wide reefscapes to intricate macro details — and all the stories in between the vibrant reefs to historical wrecks. Excited to be part of this community, and I hope to cross paths with you underwater soon! Rustico

Teleconverters do degrade the image. So a ”better” lens+teleconverter might give you a worse IQ result than a ”lesser” lens w/o converter in some other combo/set-up. Worth considering.

They are my wife's, she has all the talent in the family. Bill

@bvanant watched a couple of videos on your link above. Amazing! Ajay

I‘ll be bringing that setup to the water soon with the Canon RF 2.0x - I have also extensively shot the canon 8-15 with the Kenko 2.0x and love it. The IQ degradation is acceptable from the Kenko 2.0x as a trade for the enormous flexibility. That said, I always look forward into finding more optimized image quality gear. Special thanks also to @ChipBPhoto for sharing his extensive impression on WWL and WACP family. It confirms my impression that the only interesting candidate is the WACP-1 which comes at higher costs and weight. If you already operate an 8-15 Fisheye then the barrier to buy this is quite high as two good teleconverters will get you almost there as well. However I must gnarl that the Canon 2.0x TC is also a heavy beast compared to the Kenko 2.0x 😅 I think the best example for simple design and truly lightweight and absolute superior optic ist the old Nikonos 15mm (equivalent to 20mm prime). I wish we had more of that and an option to utilize it in the Canon RF mount system.