stillviking

Cool report! Snorkeling with the tigers not possible, right?

Wow I would just poo myself being there without a cage.

Sure! =D Being on topic, I would ask about RF 24mm macro what would be minimum dome to work good on corners? I also never thought about this particular lens to underwater photography.

I would just add latest Canon RF 16mm 2.8 to discussion.

Welcome @ColdDarkDiver!! I see you bought Canon RF 14-35 mm f4 > Canon RF 16 mm f2.8 > Canon EF 8-15 mm! What's your feedback after all this time, what are you using? 😄

I see, but Ikelite chart has a smaller dome model for RF 16 mm 2.8 as option 1 that is 6" size (however name is 8" compact). null

Got it! However, Kenko works with latest Canon RF mirrorless bodies or we need to keep a DSLR?

Interesting in Kenko website they say: "Tele converter is designed to be used with tele and super tele lenses. It is not recommended to use it with lenses with focal length from 50mm and shorter. It may affect the quality of the image." Not our experience here.

Awesome content here. Any reason with people prefer like Kenko 1.4x TC than Canon 1.4x TC?

Thanks, I will check the old wetpixel. I would love to see some full-resolution photos to check the quality before buying. Also, it's pretty weird to me Nauticam chart recommends a huge 230 mm dome for RF 15-35 mm 2.8 L with min. focus of 28 cm and RF 16 mm 2.8 with a with a min. focus of 13 cm. Shouldn't it improve?

In fact min focus distance of 28 cm is a little worry.

Thank you so much! Photophotons entrance pupil database looks very good. However I would like to shoot shipwrecks near home too, that's why I'm trying to avoid "fisheye" look.

This topic is one of the best things I've read. Congratulations! Newbie question: can I assume "entry pupil" is where the aperture blades are on my lens just looking inside it? For rectilinear photos (sharks, mantas, etc.) would you go for RF 16mm 2.8 or EF 8-15 f4L + defish?

@Adventurer thank you so much, this topic is a masterclass! Can you explain me better what do you mean with "Canon in-camera lens correction will render this lens FOV (Field of View) close to a 20mm lens"? If I compare a current zoom 16-35 mm at 16mm and this prime RF 16mm 2.8 they will not look the same? It would be the same at 20 mm?

But these bags being big, don't they have to go in the hold of the plane? It seems to me that there is a risk of breaking the material.