Phil Rudin

I could not afford to keep three housings so I sold NA-A1 and now have MX-A1 and MX-A7RV. I use the R V Marelux housing much more than the A1 housing now. The attached photo is with the Laowa 10mm, 20mm extension and 230mm dome on the Marelux A7R V housing. ISO 100, F/22, 1/200th sec. Small crop from the bottom because the lens much like a fisheye is a bit difficult to control when you get very close. The left arm is closer to the lens than the body and it is elongated making the arm look longer and the hand cropped out of the photo very big. Lighting is with two Marelux Apollo III strobes shot in manual. I plan to test this lens for splits with the 12 inch Matty Smith dome at some point using the same 20mm extension. My guess for Nauticam would be the 230mm dome and just the N100 to N120 35.5 adapter.

I currently have both the WACP-C and WACP-1 and to me the obvious question is what are your needs and are you willing to own both a WACP-? and a complete wide-angle system for shooting splits. Second do you prefer your images to be rectilinear, fisheye or are you willing to spend enough to own both. Lots of choices out there and many more on the way. Also while I believe that Nauticam provides excellent Wide Wet Optics choices they are not the only ones that offer these lenses and just like we have levels of price choice for land lenses like F/2.8 V F/4 you also have levels of choice for wet lenses. Not everyone has an SMC or CMC for super macro you have plenty of other choices in a verity of price ranges.

First of all Nauticam is an excellent company and they do extensive testing to provide the best information they can based on the tank tests. Few manufactures include any extension advise that is not in 10mm increment so very few recommend a 5mm addition to their recommendations. To add to the confusion with Sony full frame housings many ports require the N100 to N120 35.5 port adapter II so when you say the Sony FE 14mm F/1.8 requires 30mm of extension you really have 65.5mm of extension. Regarding the Nauticam WACP-2 the fact that it will auto focus above water does not always imply that it will actually work in the way you would think. All of the WWL and WACP lens AF out of the water but the conclusion should not be that the images will be in sharp focus. Since I have actually used the WACP-2 and the only real reason you would want to use it above water is for splits this is what happened in the real world. First I had to use a Childs life vest to help hold it half out of the water because it weights around 15 pounds. Second you need to chose a hyper focal distance and focus on that because trying to AF on something about or below is not easy at all. So if you want to focus closeup Set your lens at F/22 and focus on your hand them lock focus in manual so the distance won't change they shoot. For more distant shots focus on a fin and relock This can be a bit frustrating while trying to hold the system steady. Not included in any of the posts above is what you do about a lens that no one is supporting like the new Laowa 10mm F/2.8 or many others. At that point you need to revert to the system 121 uses or for the math challenged like me who have a pool in the backyard jump in and see what works best. Since I have probably reviewed more lenses than anyone on this site I will tell you without hesitation that testing in the pool is always the first step for any of my reviews. I always start with the Manufactures recommendations but I can assure you they are sometimes wrong. Last lenses with the closest minimum focus distance will beat out other lenses in any given port almost exclusively. So for instance 121 and I have both used the Tamron 17-28mm F/2.8 that focuses at 17mm in the 19cm range extensively enough to recommend it over many of the much more expensive 16-35mm's both F2.8 and F/4. The 17-28mm works even better in a 180mm dome. However in the same 180 dome the Sigma 17mm F/4 with 12cm minimum focus distance is noticeably better and can even be used in a 140mm port with dissent results. Now on to the Sony FE 14mm F/1.8 same same with the results, you are dealing with a lens that focuses to 25cm hard to get stellar performance even in a 230mm dome while the Rokinon 14mm F/2.8 that focuses to 20cm I had better results in an acrylic eight inch port with Aquatica housing and 28.5mm of extension. Not everything is apples to apples so sometimes you just need to DIY your calculations and hope for the best results possible.

I am aware but for me it is more about a like size for travel so how well 140 preformed against the WACP-C is relevant to me. At some point I will compare 230 to WACP-1 which is clearly better than C. This is a lens that is about 1/4 th the cost of WACPC and 1/6 the cost of WACP-1.

I am not a big fan of shooting flat pool walls or tile but I can immediately see that the Laowa 10mm shot in a 140mm dome with 35mm of extension and the sunshade removed looks much flatter and has sharpness about as far out at F/13 as the WACP-C does at F/11. What is most noticeable is how much more the barrel distortion tends to make the walls curve into the corners with WACP-C while the pool light in both photos remains about the same. Again WACP-C at 28mm is F/11 while the Laowa is at F/13. Laowa first photo.

I am having a very busy month so this is not something I would have time for anytime soon. Again regardless of the NPP I would be recommending whatever each housing manufacture recommends in their port charts. What works for me at present is 35mm extension for 140mm with dome shade removed and 20mm for the 230mm port without removing the shade.

I have two ports, the 140 used for the pool shots without a shade and the 230mm used for the springs shots with 20mm of extension. A 30mm vignettes and I don't have a 25mm to try. Also no profiles have been added to the Lightroom program used on the photos. I will leave the NPP math to others because in the real world the amount of changes I can make is limited to the equipment I have in house.

I only shot a few images with the wrong port extension. Not really adequate information to assess IQ. AF. is fast and appears accurate.

If you look back up this page you will see I have used it with the Marelux 140mm dome port with the shade removed.

Clearly this lens would not be most folks first choice but a friend has the lens mostly for astro. She also has a Marelux housing for Sony A7R IV and we gave it a try in a 230mm dome with to much extension so it vignettes. This can be resolved with more extension testing. Photos by Nicole Alarid in the North Florida Springs, natural light at F/5.6 un-cropped so you can see the vignette.

The TIPA 2024 awards were announced today in the US and among the winners for best camera equipment of the year is Laowa's 10mm F/2.8 rectilinear full frame AF lens. Laowa announced this as an architectural, astro, landscape and portrait lens but it is also a fantastic underwater photography lens with an AOV of 130 degrees. Attached are just a few photos from last weeks trip to the North Florida Springs. The 10mm is paired with the Sony A7R V in a Marelux housing with the Marelux 230mm dome port and two Marelux Apollo III strobes. Shot from ISO 400 to 640, most at F/13 and from 1/100th to 1/160th sec. Thanks to Nicole Alarid for her terrific job modeling.

The Warrenty I referenced is for North America user manual. I don't have manuals for the rest of the world so I suggest contacting a dealer in your area of the world. The response I got from Marelux was in reference to my area of the world. I think we are all aware that the EU has different regulations and I am sure Asia and the rest of the world differ as well. You don't need to shoot the messenger I am just releating what I was told.

That is correct, after double checking with owner of Marelux the warranty on all electronics (including flash tubes) is one year. The user manual includes guidelines for shooting at high speeds. I don't suggest that you shoot at high speeds out of the water because of increased heat a common sense suggestion.

Nauticam New version N100 Extension Ring 40 like new #37402. Retail $351.00, sell for $260.00 with free shipping in the US 48. null

Nauticam zoom gear #37153 for Sony FE 12-24mm F/4 G. Retail $220.00 US, Selling for $160.00 free shipping in the US 48.

Nauticam zoom gear #37157 for Tamron 17-28mm lens in excellent condition. Retail $255.00 US, Selling for $185.00 free shipping in the US 48.

Hi Wolfgang, You can go to the Marelux.co web site click on downloads at the top of the page then manuals. You can then download the Apollo III manual and the full warrenty is at the botton of the manual.

I am shooting the Laowa 10mm this with the 230 dome and 20mm extension on the Marelux housing. My guess for Nauticam with Sony FF would be the N100to N120 35.5 and 230 dome. I think I could go to 25mm but 30mm vignettes a bit. Marelux does not have a 25mm at this time and the 20mm is working well.

Marelux now has MV-10 and MV-15 closeup lenses with a flip adapter coming. The two lenses can be stacked to give a value of +23. I shot both with the Sony A7R V and Sony 90mm macro lenses in manual focus set to 1:1 using focus peeking for focus. I also used two Marelux Apollo III strobes for lighting set to manual. First photo is the lens at 1:1, followed by the MV-10, MV-15 and MV-10 plus MV-15 stacked. You can see the size difference in the last photo.

The position of the camera inside the housing is different between Marelux and Nauticam so the N100 to N120 35.5 port adapter is about equal to a 20mm extension on a Marelux housing. So for Nauticam about 15mm extra extension could be required, however this is speculation without testing. Your 40mm port adapter may require an extra 10mm of extension. You may want to contact Nauticam and ask if they have calculated extension support for the Laowa 10mm. Second if you look at the Nauticam web site you will see that the 140mm and 230mm ports are listed as "fisheye" while the 180mm is not. From my tests with 230, 180 and 140mm ports it appears the two fisheye ports work best so the 180 has no advantage over the 140mm port. Also be aware that with the 140mm port you will need to remove the port shade to prevent vignetting. Photo with the 140mm port allows for very close focus and very notacable straight lines emphasizing the rectilinear design.

Just remove the plate from the base of the Metabones adapter and it will work fine. null

PM sent.

So first let me say that I don't have any interest other than in trying to point out upsides and downsides to lenses I get to test. The 70-200mm F/4 macro would be my first choice for shooting above water in the focal range because of the macro feature and the fact that I don't need the F/2.8 of the Sony FE 70-200mm F/2.8 II which cost $2798.00 US V $1698.00 US new. Tamron also has a 70-180 F/2.8 for $1299.00 US which focuses closer than the Sony F/2.8 but does not get near 1:2. After further testing I found that the 70-200mm F/4 macro does not focus at 1:2 through the entire range as was advertised but is more like 1:3/3.5 at 70mm, very disappointing. In addition at 200mm and 1:2 the distance to subject is only a mm or 2 better than the excellent 90mm macro at 1:2. To test this I set the 70/200 at 200 with MF and focus peeking V. the 90mm set the 1:2 with MF and focus peeking. Results were when the lenses came into focus the 90mm was only slightly ahead of the 200mm. This was pointed out earlier by 121 and the lenses act very much the same at different magnifications only gaining or loosing a bit of DOF depending on the setting. The Sony 90mm macro is my go to lens for things in the up to about 18cm range, With macro focus limiter on you max out at about 14cm, so I stay set to full range most of the time because the new A7R V, A1, A9 iii and so on do a great job with AF down to 1:1 in most cases. If I know my intent is to shoot at 1:1 or greater using C/U lenses you start getting into the range of having some upsides going manual focus. For 1:1+ subjects where you need greater distance than the 90mm can give you to the subject I have been testing the excellent IRIX 150mm F/2.8 1:1 lens. At 1:1 you get an added 4.5cm over the 90mm macro which can make a difference with skittish critters. Contrary to what you would think if you set the IRIX 150mm at 1:2 minimum focus using peeking against the Sony 70-200mm at 200mm and minimum focus using peeking the 150mm has about 9.5cm greater distance to subject. This is not at all what I would have expected. Some other observations are that the 200 at 1:2 has slightly more magnification than the 90mm at 1:2. At 1:1 the IRIX has more magnification than the 90mm at 1:1 both shot using peeking. In AF the 90mm at 1:1 does not focus as close as when it is set to manual focus. This is common with all AF close focusing lenses. Bottom line is that while the 70-200 range is desirable above water the 70-200mm F/4 macro seems much less useful under water than say the IRIX 150mm which costs $599.00 US in the Sony FE mount. Photos are the 90 and 150 both at 1:1 at minimum focus and the 150 and 200 both at 1:2 and minimum focus. You can see the differences in close focusing distances.

You tell me 121, the Nikon 70-180mm F/4.5 to 5.6 was a popular range for many U/W shooters for years because it had similar macro features. The common 70-200 has a close focus range around 40cm this lens focuses much more closely and has a zoom range covered by many popular fixed macro lenses offerings. If how it could be used is beyond your grasp then it obviously is not for you.