Brandon Cole

Thank you for your comments, DreiFish. And I'm glad you had a better experience than I did! I was using the Canon 5D mark 4, so not a mirrorless. But it's a camera with good AF, and when paired with good (to good enough lenses) I never felt it noticeably slow to focus in otherwise normal light and with pelagic fast moving subjects, often at distance and then racing in. But all three of the lenses I used (purchased from different parties, all on e-bay, of course) were disappointing. (I did shoot some reef scenics where AF was not really tested, and it worked acceptably well. But certainly wasn't anywhere near as sharp as a native fisheye, and with no real splits ability, I did not want to lug around the WACP and the 230 on every trip.) So I abandoned the whole endeavor, selling the WACP, thinking I would revisit in the future. Though I also shoot Nikon (then and still now), I generally prefer Canon for wide angle. More because of the camera controls, auto white balance, and so on. So I did not try the Nikon old kit lenses with that WACP. But many people have been, and continue to use that combo and seem very happy with it. I'm hoping better experience with the FCP in the future. Obvious with different lenses.

Hopefully the much newer (and more expensive) Canon RF lenses would deliver sharper results, and faster autofocus. I would think so, but do not have any firsthand experience.

Folks, I recommend you try to test/demo water contact lenses with the ancient Canon 28-70 and 28-80 lenses before making the big purchase. I bought 2 copies of 28-70, and 1 of 28-80, for use with WACP-1 on Canon 5d4 and I was disappointed with all 3 Canon. None of those lenses were sharp enough, in my opinion, and the AF was slow. The speed at which they autofocused was not what I needed for fast action pelagic stuff. Between the slow AF and mediocre sharpness, I thought they were a waste behind the WACP and I discontinued use. Perhaps your needs and expectations and results would be different than mine. I hope so. Perhaps it would be fine for normal reef scenery and critter work. The zoom range is amazing, yes... Nikon shooters with their ancient 28-70 seemed much happier behind the same WACP. I can only surmise that the Nikon kit lens is a better optic than the two Canons models. Of course I have not tested either of the Canons behind the new FCP. My comments are exclusively for the WACP.

Thank you for that FOV information, Alex

Thanks to everyone who replied! Very helpful.

Hi, Does anyone know the true angle of coverage zoom range of the FCP with the popular lenses? I've read 170 (and also 180) degrees at the widest... which I assume is at 28mm, whether it's the Sony 28-60 or the ancient Nikon 28-70 or the new Nikon Z 24-50 (when zoomed in to 28mm.) But what about the long/narrow end? I've read (and heard) "130 degrees"... and also "about the Tokina 10-17 at 17", which I believe was 100 degrees at 17mm on DX... 130 and 100 degrees are noticeably different, so apparently there's some inaccuracies in the grapevine at this time. I've also heard "about 110 degrees." I assume that the narrow end of the particular zoom lens being used with the FCP will dictate the narrowest angle of coverage... So, does anyone know the true angle of view at 60mm on the Sony 28-60 lens? At 50 on the Nikon Z 24-50? And, not to forget the past, the long end of the ancient Nikon 28-70 and Canon 28-70 slow, cheap, kit lenses?

I'm certainly looking forward to the FCP. I've long missed the fov range between fisheye and the wide rectilinear lenses (14mm, 16-35mm, etc.)

Hello everyone, and thanks to the admins and community for creating Waterpixels.net