dhaas

All these lenses had Type 2 rear mounts. Not sure if the Type 1 Inon would make the rear element too close to the housings front port glass as water in between is required. Results in no particular order shooting dry. Full wide, then zooming a tad to eliminate vignetting, then zoom in to 45mm on my Canon 18-45mm lens all with WA lens attached. Both the UWL-H100 and UWL-100 vignette require zoom but not much to eliminate vignetting. Corners not impressive even at f8 on any of them. This isn't surprising as these lenses were designed for compact cameras with smaller sensors up to the 1" popular models. The Fantasea / AOI UWL-09f lens barrel is too fat to fit in the Nauticam 67mm / bayonet adapter on my fixed port kit lens housing. So that's out but for those wiht interchangeable port housings and a skinny 67mm threaded from it might work. Surprisingly the cheap Sea and Sea .6X lens almost looks the same center sharpness but again corners are crap no matter what f-stop 😞 Your results may vary but I'm inclined to not use any of these choices. The Nauticam WWL-B or WWL-C seem to be the best for overall wide to medium kit lens shooting and the price justifies their performance! DH

Both my friend's UWL-100 and UWL-H100 have no additional dome. The UWL-100 front element is larger diameter front element yet the stubbier UWL-H100 feels heavier (!!!!!!) The UWL-H100 rear element also doesn't end up as flush with the Nauticam bayonet / 67mm adapter. Either Inon UWL-100 / H100 lens is shorter that a WWL choice. How much vignetting at 18mm wide focal length of my Canon kit lens is the first consideration plus how much one needs to zoom in to eliminate it. I've always cropped any pic anyway and mild dark corners I really don't care to waste precious underwater time zooming to some exact focal length. Just crop it....... The crap old Sea and Sea .6X lens actually had very minimal vignetting but the corners shooting close in my last pool dive weren't anything to rave about. But it did work and was much lighter and smaller than my buddy's WWL-B. I have a sneaking feeling after all this screwing around I'll just shoot my kit lens through the port and and add whatever cheap WA lens is available. Mainly because I'm weight OCD about packing and diving. We'll see! DH

I just received from a friend the following lenses to test on my Nauticam NA-R50 housing bayonet to 67mm adapter: * Inon UWL-100 (designed for 35mm compact focal length) * Inon UWL-H100 (designed for 28mm compact focal length) * Fantasea / AOI UWL-09f (polycarbonate dome designed for 28mm focal length) My Canon R50 camera is a 24MP APS-C sensor and the Nauticam NA-R50 is a fixed port for using only the Canon RF-S 18-45mm IS STM kit lens. Like my buddy Nemrod I'm looking for possible medium wider solutions if not using the very wonderful bit large and heavier (and $$$$) Nauticam WWL-B or WWL-C. Doing some dry tests today with all 3 then will try to get into a pool soon. If none are worth the size / weight / travel hassle of just shooting my housing with the built in flat port won't be as disappointing as many surmise it will be. Stay tuned! David Haas

No longer available..........

MINT (used once by previous owner, not a mark on it) Nauticam CMC-1 Super Macro lens with 67mm threads. Includes original box, neoprene such, front and rear Nauticam rubber caps, 67mm threaded adapter. $350.00 shipped US domestic. Payment via Zelle or PayPal F&F. No returns. Email directly: davidhaas4596@gmail.com Call / text EST 330-329-5981

I'm with Chris as coming to me tomorrow is my "new to me" Nauticam NA-R50 housing for the low price but powerful Canon R50 camera. I realize I will be relegated to the Canon RF-S 18-45mm IS STM "kit" lens in the fixed Nauticam bayonet port. Other than the 28-70mm approximate focal length of the "kit" lens options are super macro lenses via a 67mm bayonet adapter and wide angle WWL-B or WWL-C. Have a few other ideas I'll try out but for my budget the Canon R50 at 24MP, the latest Canon DPAF and even 6K downsampled 4K video I'll be fine with the limitations. Size both for travel and diving is #1 and I personally can't justify full frame in today's digital shooting world, but that's just me. While I enjoyed the 9 years of ringing every bit of capability out of my Canon G7X II compact 1" sensor camera I'm looking forward to the APS-C return 🙂 Already practicing with the Canon R50 camera in my office and the daily visitors in my back yard 🙂 DH PS - IN the deal I found I'll already have a second Canon R50 with the RF-S 18-45mm IS STM lens required in the Nauticam NA-R50 housing so I'll be set for awhile !!!!!

Dave and Tim, Yeah, he has access to that lens, just not sure on a non-diving trip if he really wants to haul it all for what will likely be a brief few in water encounters. Thanks! DH

OK, and my original post meant to say I WASN'T looking for a debate on sharpness, typing too fast LOL.... I did recall about the screw type AF of the Tokina 10-17mm. On APS-C it was very popular and are pretty cheap these days. I wonder if the Nikon 16mm or Nikon 10.5mm Fisheye works on the FTZ adapter? Hmmmm........ My friend's looking for a possible alternative on his Galapagos eco-trip. It won't have any scuba, just some snorkeling with iguanas and sea lions. I suggested instead of hauling his whole housing for limited water opportunities he get one of those EWA bags, slap a small fisheye in it and shoot away....... I know, I know......Not the most elegant idea but it could lighten his load and allow him to make "water theme" images on those excursions. Thanks for the replies Dave and Issac...... DH

I'm looking for a debate on sharpness, etc. of the long heralded Tokina 10-17mm APS-C Fisheye lens. I and my fired realize there's other choices for Nikon FX mirrorless bodies. My friend is shooting a Nikon Z6 and simply wants to know it it would work with his Nikon FTZ adapter. He has access to a Tokina 10-17mm APS-C lens for a project. He currently uses a FTZ adapter on various FX Nikkor lenses with zero problems. His Nikon Z6 can change to DX so he just wonders if the Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye lens autofocuses and aperture can be adjusted via the camera. Hopefully any Nikon mirrorless shooters here might know :) Any insights appreciated! David Haas

Being a long time Canon APS-C shooter (before using only a 1" sensor compact G7X II the last 9 years) I'll add another option for wide angle shooting. The very capable and underrated Canon RF-S 10-18mm lens isn't fast but focuses astoundingly well! Being an RF-S lens and a rectilinear versus the long legacy Tokina 10-17mm it is a worthy option. Ikelite posted a recent video and article where a capable shooter put the Canon RF-S 10-18mm and Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye through the paces side by side. https://www.ikelite.com/blogs/reviews/wide-angle-showdown-canon-rf-s-10-18mm-vs-tokina-10-17mm-underwater I actually just pulled the trigger on my own Christmas present, a Canon R50 and 18-45mm RF-S "kit" lens from Canon Refurbished (same 1 year warranty as a "new" one.) I'll test it with my buddy's Canon RF-S 10-18mm in a pool then likely buy one for my own wide angle shooting. Being more a wide angle / medium fish shooter these days means no need for a dedicated macro lens for me. It also keeps me to one dome port making travel easier. Since you have a Marelux housing for your Canon R7 already I'd investigate fixed DRY wide angle lens and dome. The WWL-B / WWL-C or whatever combination can work very well also but will have some curvature. My friend Phil Rudin and I had a long discussion a few months back on dry lens / dome choices versus Nauticam sharp wet lenses. There's advantages to zooming a fairly low cost kit lens (Canon, Sony or Nikon, etc.) in your housing with a full focus WET lens. But there's also a movement I think (Phil can chime in) to fixed lens in a dome of various sizes like the popular Laowa 10mm Rectilinear lens which is an incredible value too. I occasionally go back 20 years on my computer(s) and am happy with many wide angle pictures I made with fixed Canon and sigma 15mm lenses, Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye (I never owed a Full Fram dSLR) plus rectilinear Canon 10-22mm or Canon 10-18mm EF-S lenses. I even shot 90% with a smaller 6" Ikelite dome port (!!!!) In summary I'd advise you check out the low cost Canon RF-S 10-18mm lens as a wide angle shooting option 🙂 David Haas Here's another friend's Nauticam NA-R50 for the Canon R50. It is a fixed port housing and a he bought a WWL-B lens I played with last summer. Quite capable even with my silly small strobe mounted in the cold shoe and I'm not sure which housing I may go with yet for my own Canon R50 as the only other choice is a Seafrogs housing. But my other Canon R50 friend has used his on 3 trips so far and it's kept his Canon R50 high and dry PLUS has interchangeable dome and flat ports available.

I'd like to know aspect ratio with the lens mounted as Davide asked. I set my Osmo 5 currently for WIDE as I don't care for fisheye curvature. My DJI Osmo Action 5 PRO will see some pool testing before my next trip. My understanding of the Inon UWL-03 lens is it sharpens the corners while widening the view, correct? I also assume I'd need whatever adapter clamps on or around the DJI clear housing. I'll use the housing while diving or snorkeling with the Osmo 5 all the time. I'm not going to chance just the camera even though it's rated to 65' depth. Thanks in advance! David Haas

Gary, Long time back in the "F" (FILM" days! LOL..... As to the Canon R50 look for a post I believe I shared dialing in one of my travel guest's Nauticam R50 rig he bought. It is very compact and usable !!!! Yes, one control dial to adjust shutter speed or aperture but the Canon R50 APS-C camera is 24MP and has incredible AF, a burst mode not even found on more expensive APS-C models and great 4K video full sensor. It's light and compact for travel too. While as posted I use a 1" sensor compact the Canon R50 interchangeable lens, Nauticam wet lens add ons is a big jump in my book and should be looked at. Add smaller strobes for Manual or TTL and you'd likely find a significant size and cost savings while still getting great pics. David Haas

Glad to hear Tim is more discerning as to shots per dive! I do still wonder how many serious hobbyists cull their treasure trove of images after a trip (????????) The numbers are likely staggering and we all delude ourselves; "I'll go back and try and see what I can do to that photo". One old article of a conversation with a National Geographic photographer was how many shots they'd shoot to have an editor select the final 5-6-13 or so shots that would illustrate an article. I think it was Joel Sartore who's work I love! His Photo Ark Photo project documenting the last of certain species (too many left in a zoo )draw you in to the essence of all manner of creatures of our planet. I know some criticize his approach but I think the images are stunning..... His conversation with an editor he asked if she thought he shot "fat". Meaning over and over and over of a subject trying to get that one "perfect" shot (whatever that is.) She told him no, you're in the same vein of 6,000 - 10,000 frames PER TRIP. Nat Geo would many times allow a photographer to go back to whatever destination / assignment if they felt he / she didn't "get it". That could result in a doubling of frames clicked and this was in the FILM days.......I'd hate to think about the numbers today....Granted, most (almost all?) aren't shooting for National Geographic or other publication. I hope my previous posts aren't taken as a "burn the house down" for change. That was not my intent. My intent is to get people to THINK about what they'll do with their pictures, how realistic it is then weigh it against $$$$, time and hassles of travel as the OP asked. Then make a best decision for YOU........ Keep shooting and diving! David Haas

I want add a few more thoughts relating to gear and mainly photography in general...... I read this article a few years ago: http://www.peterjonlindberg.com/#/new-page-1/ Here's another thought provoking one: https://petapixel.com/2016/04/18/favor-p-program-mode-photography/ While we pride ourselves risking life and limb venturing underwater to photograph (and video) things most won't see I believe digital has created a monster we've all embraced. The monster is VOLUME........ Early memory cards were expensive and slow processing. Today we shoot THOUSANDS of photos on a trip (hundreds to over a thousand per DIVE) then gleefully load them on our editing device of choice. MAYBE some have the discipline to scroll through and pick stellar choices to edit to their chosen vision. I say MAYBE because almost all photographers I know save EVERYTHING. I too was wowed by not having the limit of 36 frames as digital came on the scene and grew by leaps and bounds. Storage has become cheap and fast (almost unlimited) even if shooting large megapixel RAW files many camera's produce. My point as in the first article is WHY we do this is never questioned. We do it because now technology allows us to! On a couple of my recent hosted trips (Raja Ampat Nov. 2023, Maldives Feb. 2024 and Bali May 2024) I challenged guests using dSLRs to compacts to iPhone users. I suggested they make an album of 10 pictures at trip's end they'd consider printing and hanging on a wall. Maybe expand to 20 but that's it! No one thought it was crazy and all embraced the idea! It was more a competition with yourself as the only participant. It got some folks to really think how many missed focus / framing / exposure or totally almost nice photos they keep. Plus where and when will they even share those photos! "Hit the delete key more!" I proclaimed LOL...... I share these thoughts not to crush anyone's dream, aspirations, gear ownership or whatever. One category of shooters who likely do this already are CONTEST participants. Why? Because they HAVE TO to enter :) These are just observations I regularly see "out in the field" that might make subsea photography more enjoyable. I call it "LESS is MORE" for lack of a better term. Just more "old guy thoughts" !!!