ChipBPhoto

Your Canon 5D is an FF body with the EF mount. Unfortunately, Canon never had a good medium macro lens similar to the Nikon 60. There was a Canon EF 50 f/2.5 macro, but it is discontinued. Additionally, it was a slower focus. The most popular EF uw lenses I have seen were: - 16-35 for wide - 17-40 for wide at a lower price point - 24-70 - 100 L f/2.8 macro - 8-15 fisheye - Sigma 70 macro (possibly, don’t know focus speed) Here is an article Reef Photo published with some recommendations for the EF system. https://reefphoto.com/blogs/photography/canon-ef-mount-lens-recommendations It may also be worth while comparing against a newer body/lens as well. Unless you specifically want FF, there are some solid APS-C body/lens combos as well.

Crazy, isn’t it?!? 😳 😂

According to Phil’s testing, it works well behind an 8” or 180 dome. Search this site and you should find his review on it. Here are some comments from Phil on the Sony 20-70 and Tamron 17-50: Regarding the Sony FE 20-70mm F/4 Nauticam recommend the 250mm port for best results and with the Tamron 17-28mm F/2.8 Nauticam recommends the 180mm for best results. While I have not run tests with the Nauticam 250mm port I have used the 20-70 with 230mm and 180mm ports. As you would expect at 20mm the corners become a bit soft V. larger ports but for me it was not a deal breaker because I was using the lens more often in the 50 to 70mm range while using the 17-28mm in the 180mm port for wider shots. My port extension lengths vary when testing with My Marelux A1 and A7R V housings but the 180mm and 230mm ports sizes remain the same. I also use a 12 inch (305mm) port for surface and split shots so have a very good idea how the 17-28 works in a very large port. For someone already shooting the Sony 20-70mm in the 170/180mm dome you may also want to consider the Tamron 17-50 for a better range or the stellar Sigma 17mm F/4 which I have used in both the 180mm and 140mm ports with excellent results. While I like the versatile of a 17 to 28/50 the Sigma 17mm prime is excellent because it will focus to 1:3.8 at 12cm (4.7 inches) this is closer than Tamron 17-28mm or Tamron 17-50mm which both focus to 19cm on the wide end of the lens.

The Canon EF-S 60 is a reasonably fast focus with the a7rV and a1, but there is significant vignetting on a FF for anything other than blackwater. It would not be my choice for daylight photos. While I have not tried it, the Sony 50 macro should work reasonably well for subjects that do not need high-speed focus. The reason it is not a desired choice for blackwater is due to the slower focus hunt speed. Phil Rudin has found very good success with the Sony 20-70 f/4 lens. It appears to have a sharp focus and performs well underwater due to its close focus capability of 9”. It also works well above water, if needed. It is not, however, a macro. If macro is desired, the options are limited. Non-macro has more choices, provided they are capable of close-focus.

Hi @Kraken de Mabini We are happy to offer suggestions, but it depends on the type of photography or subjects you wish to capture. Also, is budget a key consideration? Please share a few more details so we can share the best suggestions.

Excellent; happy to help! I tried the lens without a port and did not see much different much difference in the vignetting. Most seems to be related to the FF sensor vs the APS-C lens coverage. Please let us know what you think of it.

This once again demonstrates the “right system” is a personal opinion and choice to that person. That’s why I used my Canon T2i APS-C underwater for 11 years. It did all I wanted it to do, and I was quite happy with the results, travel size, etc. I used compact flash, film, and SVHS-C with tape-to-tape editing for video underwater prior to that, and enjoyed those experiences as well. In 2020 I upgraded to my first Sony FF with a Nauticam water contact lens and have enjoyed the experience even more. I have made several other upgrades since then, but does that mean what I chose is for everyone or everyone “should” or “should not” buy what I did? Absolutely not. It simply means it has been a success and enjoyment for me and how I dive. With that said, there are certainly days I miss the smaller and cheaper APS-C format. I, like us all, am always happy to share my experiences, good and bad, with others that ask in their personal decision process. Personal experiences are not, however, “facts” that others should follow. They are simply personal opinions based on that user’s subjective results and/or methodology. All the numbers in the world do not prove or disprove what someone should buy. The questions around FF/APS-C/m43, best brand, lens, strobes, etc. are all subjective to what best fits an individual’s needs, budget, etc. When I’m on a boat I often encourage those with GoPros, TG-6s, etc. that they can do so much with what they have, and to enjoy the experience. I enjoy hearing the experiences from others. If the system someone uses and enjoys works for them, that is their right system for that moment. It is good that we have such a forum to share information surrounding such a subjective subject.

Unfortunately, the fisheye is a very specialized lens for above water. While the underwater community is strong, it does not appear to have enough demand to encourage manufacturers the make new versions. The exception is Sigma who just released a Sony FE mount fisheye. The major downside is it will not focus close, which is a key requirement for our needs. This renders it useless for uw. I agree that the new Nauticam water contact lenses are a game changer. The new FCP-1, while expensive at about $7K USD, has provided a quite flexible, although large 170-180 degree solution. Its unprecedented versatility is driving the demand. My personal go-to is either a WACP-C or WWL (for travel), but the Canon 8-15 is still a useful tool with the 140 dome for small and effective ultra-wide needs.

I tend to do the same, or set at “daylight” if in bright blue water. Thanks!

I too use the warmer diffusers in blue water. Do you also set your camera to 4600, auto, or other?

Hi @StephanieW I have the Canon EF-S 60 macro and found it works well with the Metabones V on both the Sony a1 and a7rV. Focus seems accurate and the hunt is a bit snappier than the Sony 90, although there is still some hunting on complicated subjects. For ports, I have found either the normal Nauticam N100 Port 105 for the Sony 90 or Flat Port 45 + 30mm extension work. I would assume your Port 55 + a 20mm extension would be the same as my 45 + 30. As mentioned, this is an APS-C lens. As such there is a quite noticeable vignetting in the corners in FF mode, but gives the desired medium macro. I purchased it for blackwater diving specifically which negates the issue of corner vignettes so long as the subject is framed in the center. Hope this helps! chip

Agree about the Metabone V. I also use the Sigma MC-11 with the Canon 8-15, but it has been reported it may not refocus in between repetitive burst frames. Overall I have found the auto focus to be very fast and accurate. With that said, I'm a huge fan of using Sony native glass whenever possible. (Unfortunately, there is no native fisheye) While these adapters perform very well, native lenses removes one extra link in the chain. Good luck!

Hey @ChrisH - Absolutely terrific images!! As someone who enjoys wrecks, you've added a new destination to my list! The remote lighting and well placed dives really brought the images to life. If you liked the live aboard operator, please share the name. Also, how challenging was it to get to Petra from there? That is also at the top of my list. Thanks for sharing your work!

Excellent news! I have the same setup. Currently I have the UWT trigger set at 0 and use the Z-330s in manual. If I want to change to TTL, this will be very useful information. Thanks again!

Hey @DreiFish Thank you for a quality, practical demonstration of the strobes. For me, this particular scene shows how the light impacts the various 3-D aspects (fish, reef, etc.), overall coverage, and coloring. There is a noticeable difference. Is one "better" than the other? That is completely subjective based on personal taste and needs. (right tool for the right need) I feel this is, however, a terrific performance demonstration in this wide scene for people to use in making up their own minds. Nice job!!

Happy to help! You may be able to find a nice used WWL-1B at a good price. FYI - The WWL-1 and WWL-1B are the same lens. The “1B” is the newer version and has the buoyancy collar built in. If you decide to get either the WWL-C or WWL-1B, be sure to get the current version 2 of the mount (M67 to Bayonet Mount Converter II). It has a better release than the version 1. Good luck! chip

Hi Kalle, Congrats on the new a6700! It’s a great camera and nice upgrade. I’ve used the various options you are considering. Here are a few thoughts from a practice standpoint that may help. Tokina 10-17: This has been the absolute go-to for most APS-C users for wide and close focus wide angle (CFWA). This gives you a true 180 fisheye with a little zoom. It works perfectly behind a Zen 100 mini dome and allows ultra-close focus. You can literally put the dome right next to a starfish leg and it will focus on it. This is a great choice for very large objects such as wrecks and massive schools of fish. You will need either a Metabones or Sigma MC-11 adapter with the Canon version of the lens. WWL-C: The new water contact lenses are a game changer! They work like contact lenses to make an average kit lens perform well underwater with great sharpness, especially for an APS-C resolution. When paired with the Sony 16-50 lens it provides a terrific blending of wide angle, CFWA, and tighter zoom in a single solution. The “C” version has a wide field of view starting at 124 degrees, which is less than the 180 of the fisheye, but does have a great deal more flexibility with sharpness throughout. It is also a very small design which is great for travel and ease on the boat. The zoom capabilities also make it a good solution for pelagics to capture the entire creature and details. WWL-1B: All the same characteristics as the “C” with a slightly wider FoV starting at 130 degrees. This is helpful for large objects such as wrecks. **Nauticam considers this to be slightly sharper than the “C” version. This is also transferable should you decide to use it with a Sony FF body and the Sony 28-60 lens in the future. It is just slightly bigger than the “C”, but still super easy for travel and usage. Personally, this is my go-to for all around use. Regarding the other lenses, higher quality lens work well behind normal domes, assuming they can focus close. Corner sharpness becomes a greater concern and the dome size can become much larger depending on the specific lens used, especially for wider lenses. They will not, however, have as wide of a FoV as either the 180 degree fisheye or 130 degree WWL-1B. Normally, we favor a wider option underwater so we can get our lighting closer to the subject and reduce particulates in the water between the camera and subject. Ironically, water contact lenses actually work better with more simple and affordable “kit lenses” such as the 16-50 as they are designed to improve both image quality and sharpness for underwater usage specifically. Thus, an average lens above water becomes a terrific option below. Summary, in my opinion: - Tokina 10-17: Widest field of view with minimal zoom. Best for very large scenes such as wreckscapes. - Sony 16-50 + WWL-1B: Greatest versatility and sharpness for wide, CFWA, and tight. I hope this offers some insight. chip

Such a great question and topic for the group. First, congratulations on making some beautiful images! The results show how much time and effort you invest in making quality frames. Like us all, I too am frequently far too attached to my images. While they are important to me or bring back some wonderful memories when I see them, they can end up being too much like a corp PowerPoint presentation to others due to, not the quality, but the simple quantity. I like how you have your images cataloged by event/date. I also like what you have in each catalog as it is meaningful to you. In addition to comments already shared, here are a couple thoughts that may help. - Within your current galleries, select the top 10-20 images in each catalog and move those to the top. This will “wow” your audience at the grab their attention. This will also allow them to see your best work should they decide not to view the entire catalog. Make sure they are images your audience can understand. Ask, “what we would see in a National Geographic or Alert Diver article about that destination?” - Within the top 20, include the “classic” images and then the details. In those top images, include a few that transport the viewer to your destination. Maybe even include an image of the liveaboard while moored or the resort as an establishing image. Once the viewer is at the destination with you, they can appreciate the smaller details in the journey. Think of the Eiffel Tower. There are countless images of it, but the unique beauty is in the delicate closeup details. Without first showing the tower overall the audience would not appreciate the interesting sights you found that others may have never seen. - By having your top images already at the top, you have an easy place from which to pull those images you may want to print, publish, etc. - Perhaps even include a thin horizontal divider after your top 20 that says something like, “Dive deeper into the details.” The remainder of the images would be after. This would give the viewer a natural choice to either continue viewing the rest or be happy they enjoyed your best from your adventure and politely stop there. - Think wide, medium, and tight images. If possible, try and include a mix of views to help the viewer get a sense of size. An example could be a school of snapper on a colorful reef, then a tighter view of just the faces of a couple snapper. In short, continue to curate the overall gallery down to around 10% of the total you like. (You are already doing this.). Inside each, move the best 10-20 to the top that tells the story and becomes your “wow” images of the trip. (Sharp, colorful, eye catching) When sharing with others, tell them they can see the top 20, and then they can dive deeper if they want to see more details. Thank you for sharing your work. You have some wonderful images!

Absolutely agree @TimG! For me, reliability is a top consideration. Strobes, like lenses, bodies, housing, etc., are "tools." Each has a strength / weakness and depends so much on personal taste or needs. So long as the item is reliable and reasonably easy to use, there will be someone that will find it to be a perfectly acceptable option. Opinions and personal beliefs are just that, and not necessarily facts. So long as the user is able to make the images they want, it is a good tool for them. It's all about matching the individual needs, and possibility even constraints, with the right tool. It is great that we can share our practical experiences to give others something to consider in their decisions.

Thanks so much Klaus! I agree, the soft focus works for this scene. I did the same with a nearby boat above the water line, but unfortunately it just looked out of focus due to it being a man-made object. For serious split work a larger dome is the answer. A soft focus above could still be achieved by using a wider aperture while focusing on the uw subject. One would have options. Thanks again for the kind words. Thanks so much fruehaufsteher2! I really appreciate it. It all gets back to how important splits are overall to you personally. They are def fun and can be quite impressive for sure. There are some close ups of corals uw and a nice sunset above I want to do. I’d like to do the same with stingrays and a nice sky above.

Cool pic Tim! I hate it when the mermaids didn’t get the memo! 😂 I completely agree that a rectilinear lens is by far the best choice for splits. Just be sure that it has a close focus capability, or you will not be able to capture the scenes you want. So glad the info was helpful. I had an entire response written…and then it didn’t send correctly. Uugh!! Short answer is the image I shared was with the WACP-C, Sony 28-60 @ f/22. I tried different settings and this had the sharpest above water elements. The FCP will have similar results. Bottom line, if you want sharp splits you will need a dome of some sort.

Nice split! Terrific shark detail with the split creating a unique angle. I too own a WACP-C and have done a similar image with manatees. It’s a fun perspective. The issue is cost vs usable dome size for splits. That does not really fall into the cheap category once everything needed is added up. There will be those that will chime in with lots of math, but here are my findings from a practical perspective. A wider dome is needed to more evenly disperse the water along the dome face. While a small 140 dome can do splits, it must be in similarly flat conditions as the one in your image. Obviously this is relatively rare. A 230 dome is the common go-to due to its wide surface. It is also compatible with almost any lens, Canon 8-15 fisheye or rectilinear. The down side is the cost and size issue. If you have an occasional interest in doing them, this may not be the best solution, unless you are able to rent one. A 180 dome can do some decent splits, but again this is a smaller surface than the 230 which is not as forgiving in real-world conditions, but larger than the 140. The Nauticam 8.5” acrylic dome is both relatively cost effective and compatible with a wide range of lenses. At 216mm, it is similar to the 230 size. As it is light weight acrylic, it will be much more “floaty” than your WACP-C and will pull the front of your rig nose up much more easily. The fact that it is made from acrylic keeps the cost down, but also is susceptible to scratches much easier than glass. On the positive, the scratches can be buffed out if needed. Lastly, if you want perhaps the best for splits, but is only for splits, not diving, Marty Smith makes a massive 12” dome that is fantastic. The large front disperses the water quite evenly and allows for a very user friendly experience. The down side is it is only depth rated to perhaps 15’, meaning it is intended for only splits. The acrylic build is also quite floaty. Be sure to factor in that basically all these options are made for the N120 port system. You will need to start with the N100 to N120 adapter which adds to the cost, as well as the appropriate extension depending on your choice. As for lenses, the Canon 8-15 with adapter (Metabones or Sigma MC-11) is the standard for Sony users. This would give the ultra wide perspective, with ultra close focus capabilities. Rectilinear lenses can include the Sony 16-35 (the 16-35 f/4 PZ is very small and light), Tamron 17-28, etc. Phil Rudin really likes the Sony 20-70 as an all around option. I hope this gives some insight into your options and at least a starting point to compare. Good luck and let us know where you end up. -Chip

Hey John - selecting APS-C or cropping the FF in post is exactly the same thing. The only difference is when in APS-C mode only the smaller portion of the sensor is used. This results in the lower resolution. Agreed that using APS-C can def help with composition. The only downside is if the desired final frame is larger than the smaller activated portion of the sensor. I personally normally work in the higher res FF mode and crop in post as needed. This allows the most options for the final product. Hope this helps - Chip

Hey Brandon - The hold up is on Canon’s side. They have been very reluctant to release the rights to their new RF mount for AF. Rokinon came out with RF AF lenses and Canon ordered them to discontinue. They just recently allowed Tamron and Sigma to make RF AF lenses, but only for the APS-C models. RF FF AF (that’s a lot of acronyms) is still for Canon’s exclusive production at this time. Anyone’s guess as to when this may change.