Alex_Mustard

Illustrated review of shooting the Sony 100mm in Lembeh is up on YouTube:

I'd agree with that from practical experience. That this is relative to flat port, not a dome port, which of course, is what we’d be using these wide angle lenses behind these days.

I am excited to see Seacam exploring this idea. And keen to see more sample images - as the one test shot on their website looks both distorted and with very poor corner performance. Which I find somewhat surprising as I found this technology gave good optical performance (up to a 20mm wide angle on full frame). I shot with an Ivanoff style port for several years, and was very happy with its performance, but have not bothered adapting it to my current housing yet - and have been using the smaller Nikonos 15mm to fill this niche instead. Here it is on my Nikon D5 in 2015. I used the optic quite a lot for a couple of years and took many well known images with it. Such as this photo from the Wildlife Photographer of the Year: Wildlife Photographer of the YearRig diver | Wildlife Photographer of the Year | Natural...Diving beneath the oil rig, Alex had to anticipate when the cormorants would burst through the fish shoal. The birds hide behind the legs of the rig after they plunge into the dark waters, gaining the And also this photo, which will be seen widely in the coming months as it is the main promotional image for the forthcoming BBC Blue Planet 3 series: Could you be a part of Blue Planet III | BBC EarthWe are currently on the lookout for captivating and unusual animal behaviours from the marine world, and would love your help. Some memorable BBC nature sequences began as observations by wildlife entAs well as others. Rebikoff was the one to claim extreme depth of field for this lens (see figure 6.13 in Mertens 1969) but I never felt this was especially evident in my pictures. This is shot with the port - and shows minimal depth of field can be achieved: https://www.amustard.com/library/fifteen/CAY15_am-101945.jpg For me the downside of the system is that the look was too rectilinear! Topside photographers always think that fisheye distortion is something that we'd want to avoid underwater - but actually it is the barrel distortion of fisheye lenses than makes many underwater wide angle pictures immersive. Non-fisheye wide angle images often feel stand-off-ish. So carrying the weight of this port around for the few wide angle shots I don't want to have a fisheye look, is the main reason I'm not currently using mine. But overall I am excited to see this option being explored and developed. If it works it would be easy to adapt to any housing. I look forward to some sample images that show decent corner performance on 16mm wide angle lenses. Mine gave exceptional image quality with my 20mm lens - but the corner performance was not great when I used my 16-35mm with it.

I've shot over 3000 underwater images with the Sony 100mm now. It is definitely the best macro lens that I have tried on my Sony. And arguably the best macro lens on the market. That said it is small gains over other options, rather than this being a whole new world. AF better, especially tracking and difficult subjects. Sharpness excellent, but not that different. Bokeh more attractive. The 1:1.4 range makes it very versatile - you can definitely do so much with the lens and MFO-1. Works very well with MFO-3, SMC-3 and EMWL-160 (although I find I get a bit more camera shake than with 90mm - despite stabiliser - need to check settings). The most impressive thing to be me is the performance with teleconverter. AF is amazing with TC.

I had the chance to shoot it in Lembeh, last week, while the Backscatter boys were in town. Matthew and I will surely chat about it when I am back.

Focusing Unit 3 working perfectly with the EMWL.

O-ring from an old Inon strobe.

Quick update on the ports. Nauticam's new port for the lens made it to Lembeh today - and it obviously fits the 100mm perfectly. I've only tried it briefly, but the 90mm port is problematic - as the front part of the 100mm lens does not fit neatly into the inside of the Nauticam port for the 90mm, so the lens ends up not being able to get right up to the front glass. Which won't be an issue for most things, but I suspect would impact using the EMWL. I will test more in the coming days. I have a shorted Nauticam flat port here (32 - I think) - which accommodates the front of the 100mm lens better. And this plus a lot of a port extensions might be better for accommodating multiple macro lenses, while keeping travel bulk down. Ultimately, though, the new 100mm port is not heavy - so maybe the best thing might just be biting the bullet and getting the new port. Although as Pietro notes above - maybe shooting through water limits how far this lens stands above the 90mm Sony - and especially the 90mm Tamron.

Nauticam's own tests with their dedicated port say UNIT 3 is best. It will be tricky to get it to work with a converted port from the 90mm as the spacing has to be perfect to avoid vignetting. UNIT 2 works too, but with some very small vignetting at some focusing distances. I'll test it with Unit 3 this week - assuming I get the port. But if I am using the adapted 90mm port I'll probably just stick to testing the 1.4 x TC (I don't own a 2x), MFOs and SMCs this time. Been busy testing other gear so far this trip so far.

One thing I meant to say yesterday was to always be careful when lenses end up very close to the glass - I’ve seen a few times problems when the housing compresses underwater (more port sections - more o-rings - more compression), the port then pushes the lens and camera back in the housing enough that the push buttons on the back of the housing start activating.

Sorry for the slow reply. Yes, I had those Saga port extensions custom made. Quite a lot of people got the 16mm one - as it was perfect for adding the Nikon 5T lens to the 90mm (in the days before the MFO-1). TIP: if you do get one - put a little mark on it - so you know where to line it up when taking it off (you'll thank me every time you have to take it on and off - every saga port extension I have owned is always super tight fitting!)

I think that the Sony 1.4x is about 18-19mm thick, so once mounted on the lens I think it will need a 20mm port extension (pictured). Nauticam do not currently sell at N100 20mm port extension, but it would make sense for them to do so. The one I have (not on sale) has an unusual port lock (I guess because of lack of space in such a small port extension) and the should make sure the new Sony 100mm port is compatible with this lock - if they go down the route of releasing this item.

Ironically the 20mm was the extension for the FCP prototype, and the 35mm is the one needed for the production FCP. Not sure when I will get the lens, though.

My guess is that we won’t see a N100 20mm extension from Nauticam. The ones I have are from early 2023, which Nauticam supplied for the FCP prototype testing (the port lock only worked with that port). And if they had wanted to make them commercially they could have already. But I know that the dealers complain when the product range that they have to stock becomes too large - which I think is why these were never made commercially. I have a good range of shorter N100 port extensions (top-bottom: Nauticam 20mm, Saga 16mm, Saga 20mm and Nauticam 20mm) which I find very useful when experimenting with unusual lens set ups, adapters, teleconverters, internal close up lenses etc. Just sharing the photo to show that solutions are possible, but likely to be a custom build - and therefore I’d expect the new port to be the easiest choice for most. 16mm was the shortest port extension that Saga could make for me in N100 mount. Alex

Not a proper underwater review yet... Although surely better than that one above where the guy starts says the Sony 90mm macro is his favourite lens in the world 😂. Saves watching that one! Anyway, Matthew and I enjoy a good speculate on whether the Sony 100mm is a justifiable purchase and discuss the pros and cons. Basically it is a lot of money (lens + port/ext ring) for a gain that might be small or medium over the 90mm - that you surely already own if you are a Sony FF UW shooter. Neither of us has tried the lens yet, but have both had off the record discussions with friends who have shot it. I think we can all be confident that the lens will be the best macro lens for Sony, but what is not clear is by how much. This was recorded earlier in the week before Nauticam announced their new macro port. The sensible advice for most is wait and see if the improvements it brings really translate underwater or not and make it worth the considerable entry fee. But what's the fun in being sensible when it comes to your hobby!

I am hopeful that the 16mm port extension (made by Saga) that I used to use for the 5T lens - will work for the 100mm and the 90mm port. But I won't know until I get a lens. Otherwise I will use the 20mm - which I have three N100 ones (one from Saga, two from Nauticam - although I am not sure these were ever actually offered for sale). Actually long term I'd like a dedicated Tamron 90mm port, which is slightly shorter than the Sony 90mm. And then I'd be able to just use a standard N100 20mm port extension for the Sony 100mm. As I don't think I will travel with the Sony 90mm once the Sony 100mm comes out. Only the Tamron 90mm. I've no idea when the lenses will ship - but when they do I will happily test what fits (although I appreciate not everyone has the 16mm port extension).

I've ordered one. No idea on wait, but it would be conveninet if it came in time for my Lembeh trip in November. Very happy that it will work with TCs - something I used to value greatly with my Nikon 105mm - for certain subjects and for adding lens options with little baggage cost for travel. This shot is a Nikon 105mm and 2x TC:

I feel that the Tamron 90mm and Sony 90mm are close to indistinguishable in real world underwater shooting. I have used the Tamron more this year than the Sony, but both are currently in my bag here in Canada, as the 90mm is such an important focal length for Sony users underwater, that I like having a back up on trips. But I also think that the Tamron is one of those measurebator favourites - yes, very marginally better, but far more noise is made about it, than real world performance gain. The Tamron is not worth upgrading to from the Sony - they are just so similar. Of course, if you are starting from scratch then its price makes it the better choice (but do be aware that being slightly shorter it does cut off 'vignette' slightly on some ports/wet lens combos specifically designed for the Sony 90mm). However, if a 100mm is coming soon - I would not encourage anyone to buy a Sony-fit macro lens right now until they see what appears and at what price.

Another rumour with the same details... https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/is-the-sony-100mm-f-2-8-gm-macro-coming-on-september-30/ And rumoured release coming soon.

Amazing colour on that mossy. Lovely!

Yes, way more powerful. Most of the strobes I mentioned above are more powerful than the Subtronic Alpha Pro (which was impressive in its time), but a step (or stop) or two below what we have now.

I have always taken light very seriously in my photography and been willing to invest in the best strobes around, even when finances have been tight (as they often are working as a photographer). I credit using quality strobes (and me paying attention to using them well) as being a major factor in me developing a successful career as an underwater photographer. I jokingly credit Sea & Sea for my success - and their marketing machine that kept many of my competitors shooting with inferior light to me for more than a decade! The Subtronic Alpha Pro strobes were very good in their time (I also had Subtronic Alphas, Megas and Gammas - but preferred the light from the Alpha Pros). They had a pleasing quality of light, good colour temperature. I used them as my main blue water wide angle strobes from about 2000 to 2012. They were not especially reliable, and Subtronic service at that time left a lot to be desired. I used INON Z240s as macro and green water strobes during much of this period and onwards. When I could afford new strobes i chose Seacam 150s - which I got in 2012 and used these as my main strobes until 2019. These were noticeably more powerful that the Subtronics. The light was not as soft and i usually used the Seacams with diffusers on them and positioned them slightly further back from my subjects than the Subtronics. But the light is very good, colour excellent and the light went further. The Seacams were more reliable than the Subtronics, but still needed regular servicing. The battery packs and cables were their weak points. Many of my friends shot Sea & Sea YS250s at this time - but I felt that the Seacam was about a stop more powerful and had a better quality of light too. I was very happy there were so many people championing other strobes. Through much of this time I used the Inon Z240 as my main macro and green water strobes, upgrading to the original Retra flash for this purpose in 2017, I think. I went for the original Retra flash because it had better wide angle ability too, while still in a small package. I did a couple of trips with the Z330s, but these were too wide angle focused. As the Seacam 150s aged I tried the ONE UW and Seacam 160s as replacements, but settled on the Retra Pros. All there have great powerful light - but the Retra Pros did so in a smaller package and they had the most pleasing soft light in my opinion. They were also cheaper! I stayed with Pros and skipped with Pro X. I then moved to the Pro Max - the light is basically the same as the Pros, but the battery performance is way, way better. I’ve tried various Chinese circular flash tube, lithium powered strobes - Kraken 160, Supe D-Lamp and these are all fine. The light quality is good. Colour temp a bit cool. The power a step below - I think they don’t get enough light out of the tube despite plenty of power behind it. The Backscatter HF-1 is the most powerful strobe on the market currently (thatI have tried). It is fun to have so much power and I have used them in preference over the Pro Max on big animal trips like with sharks. But otherwise they tend to be used as backups or as off-camera strobes. They are powerful and reliable and I think the light is decent, but not exceptional. The light is best with the warmest flat diffusers. The Retra Maxi is slightly more powerful, but is not on sale yet. I’ve not shot the Ikelite 230 in the ocean, only in the pool, but these were a whole stop less bright than the Maxi (and therefore almost the HF-1). Also I did not try the Maxi with the final reflector set up - but as I tried it, it was very similar to HF-1. Retra say the production version will have improved quality of light. I will probably replace my HF-1s with a pair of Maxis when they are available. The brand new Retra Pro Max II pretty much matches the HF-1 in real world power, with a much better quality of light and in a smaller package. I used them on every dive on my last trip and plan to use them as my main strobes going forward. The Marelux Apollo 3 is impressive as a companies first strobe. But they are less powerful and have a poorer quality of light to the HF-1, but they are probably more powerful than my old Seacam 150s - so right up there. The light is too directional and lacks red, giving poorer colours when shooting them on the reef. The high speed shooting mode annoys me. In standard mode you can only shoot slowly, and then in the high speed mode you can’t shoot at high enough power - because achieving 10 frames a second is prioritised (a mode that did 5 frames a second at a high power would be great - but you can’t have that). It is like making a car that can do 50 kph and 200kph, but nothing in between. I also think that the Lumilink system has very limited practical use - so bulking up the strobe and bumping up its price to have this is a pity. And sadly it is also impossible to get a honest opinion on any Marelux product because the internet is filled with paid opinions. As you asked for my subjective opinion - I’d stress that this is all my subjective opinion. We’re lucky now that we have a load of strobes that are way, way better than Z240s and D1s that everyone was using 10-15 years ago. I’ve said/joked several times that the popularity of Retra strobes amongst serious shooters frustrates me - because everyone has great light now - and something that used to differentiate my work has gone.

The failing is not the entrants or winners, but I fear that Compact Contest Categories are not really achieving the purpose they set out to. Compacts are increasingly niche and that niche has also become incredibly wide.

This is a real challenge for Compact Categories in contests. Compact Categories were started to enable those with lesser cameras to show what could be achieved without spending the big bucks. In recent years some Compact Category winners have been rightly criticised for using super expensive lenses, that take the system cost way above that of most SLRs or FF mirrorless. Now we have a compact that costs more than most of those cameras too...