Phil Rudin

I met David Haas in 1990 while we were in this David Doubilet workshop. I can assure you that at that time Davis was not such a minimalist. We still talk frequently and debate the merits of two old guys carrying large systems when we have both shot tens of thousands of UW photos.

It kinda makes you think some folks here should spend more time in the water and less time pixel peeping and posting. The UWPMAG.com article is here.

Wolfgang, I did not intend to hijack this thread, in short the 16-25 had better corners than the Tamron 17-28, 17-50 and Sigma offerings. Also out preforms the original Sony FE 16-35mm F/2.8 GM and not worth the cost difference v. FE 16-35 GM II unless you need the longer end for twice the cost. Sony 16-35 Minimum focus 28cm, GM II 21.1cm and the 16-25 18cm. At 18cm you can shoot in a 180mm port without compromise. 21--28 not so much. Also smaller, lighter and 67mm v. 82mm threads which is an upside especially it you own the S&S converter lens in 72mm. My understanding was that while it would cover the frame the corners were not sharp as you would expect, so great for things like blackwater were corners are not an issue. I have never been a Canon guy so trust your description. I have had a bunch of Canon friends over the years and never remember any of them using the 60 macro on their full frame cameras.

Since Chip has brought up my name I will add my thoughts regarding the 50/60 macro range. First macro was in the film days defined as life size or greater so, 1:1, 2:1 and so on. Now with the different sensor sizes and accessory C/U lenses the common view is that larger subjects up to say 1:5 or 6 might be considered macro. I own Sony A1 and A7RV cameras and both the Sony FE 50mm and FE 90mm macro lenses. To me the 50mm becomes more of a fish portrait lens than a true macro lens because at 1:1 you need to be very close and it doesn't work very well with a closeup lens like +10 or +15. With the adapted Canon 60mm macro you are getting an APS-C size image on FF that is equivalent to the 90mm +/- a degree or two. I fail to see the upside to getting the same AOV on APS-C that I can get on FF with the 90mm. On A7RV this would take my image from 61MP to 26MP still an impressive file for sure but what is the point. With the 90mm on APS-C I get an equivalent 135mm macro at 26MP. With the Nikon 60 macro you are at least getting full frame but the adapters for Nikon lenses are not as well refined as those for Canon. My recommendation for small subjects in the 1:3 or greater range is now the Sony FE 20-70mm which I fine very useful for a wide range of subjects. I covered this lens in a uwpmag.com review issue #135, a free download. At the time of the review I recommended it along with the Tamron 17-28 or Sigma 17mm for a wider AOV. I am now recommending the new Sony FE 16-25mm F/2.8 G. This lens focuses close and will work very well in the 180mm dome port it also has GM image quality for half the price. I also use the 20-70 in the 180mm dome even though larger ports up to 250mm are recommended. This is overkill for me and I find the loss of sharpness in corners to be over hyped. Looking back over ten years of using 16 to 35mm lenses I found that over 95% of my images were in the 16 to 24 range so for me the 26 to 35 range will not be missed as it is well covered with the 20-70mm. The 20-70 can also be used in APS-C mode in a pinch to get you to 105mm at about 1:2. Regarding using the 20-70 behind a flat port I tried this with my 90mm macro port with 67mm threads. The 70mm end of this lens is when it is fully extended and I was able to zoom to 63mm before hitting the inside of the port. I could only zoom back to about 59/60mm before it started to vignette. I think you could get a zoom range of perhaps 70 to 50mm in a flat four inch port but the extensions would need to be perfect at 70mm. Because I actually use the equipment and don't just measurebate about it I have included some photos at the wide and extended ends of the lens. Cave diver shots are at 20mm shooting at F/9 (something measurebaters say should not or can't be done with full frame). Fish are at 68mm to 70mm at F/10 to F/16.

Sagadive.com makes WACP N120 adapters for at least seven different housing brands. In Marelux world the 32 flat port with 67mm threads works with the Sony FE 28-60mm and WWL-1/1B. Marelux also has an N100 to Marelux 5 inch 17mm adapter for the same Sony 28-60 and WACP-C. Marelux also has a Nauticam N120 to Marelux 5 inch 20mm extension which works with WACP-1/2 in the N120 mount. It also works with ports like those from Nauticam and Zen. I use mine with the 12 inch Matty Smith dome for split shots. The Sony FE 28-60 works with the WACP-1 direct mounted with no additional extension. In the photo of WACP-1 mounted on the Marelux housing I am using the 20mm NA to MX adapter and a 30mm Marelux extension while testing a Tamron zoom with WACP-1. Marelux also has the Aquista line of wet wide lenses coming soon and you can also get to 130 degrees with the excellent Laowa 10mm F/2.8 rectilinear auto focus lens for Sony FE and Nikon Z. Silver housing is WWL-1, Top view short adapter is the WACP-C and WACP-1 with two extensions.

The only M43 housing announced by Marelux is the MX-OM1 housing. It was announced several months ago but does not yet seem to be in production. The OM-1 housing will require a completely new set of ports not yet announced. Current Marelux full frame and APS-C housings all use the same five inch port systems. Aquatica supports GH-5 (likely discontinued) I believe, not aware of any other Panasonic cameras.

Not sure about GN which is always embellished a bit but I have tested a lot of strobes over 55 years with the exception of Retra and these are the most powerfully at full coverage I have used. Nice photo.

I believe you need the same UWT or Turtle trigger used for TTL, MTL AND HSS. I have an example at five FPS on the cover using the UWT trigger with fiber shooting Laowa 10mm on A7R V and all exposures were equal even after several seconds. In a low light situation that could change.

I think you have perhaps misunderstood the manual in that you can shoot 10 FPS at power level #12 when using fiber optic cords to fire the Apollo III flash. The 10 FPS only at power level #5 is only when using the LumiLink wireless flash trigger. This is an issue of the signal from the on camera flash trigger (UWT) to the Lumilink trigger and them the flash just not being able to move fast enough to keep up at 10 FPS. In MTL mode set to 10 FPS using fiber optic cords the MTL setting automatically reduces the power at a given power level to allow the strobe to recycle fast enough to get in 10 frames in one second. So at the top power level of 12 the guide number is reduced from 44 to 22.

The big news for Laowa is that the 10mm in Sony FE and Nikon Z are its first auto focus lenses after being in business for ten years. According to the web site the lens is in much higher demand than Laowa had ever expected and if you ordered today from the Laowa web site shipping will be expected sometime around August 2024. I ordered mine direct from Laowa very early on and got it in four days from start of shipping. My guess is that the manual versions are in smaller demand and may be back burnered v the AF models. Manual also is available in 5-blade and 12-blade making it even more speculated to go manual. For me it was worth the wait.

First it would be nice not to assume everyone is using Nauticam and simply acknowledge that extension starts at the housing and not at the port adapter, so Nauticam recommends a 30mm extension plus the 35.5mm port adapter so the extension with the NA-230mm port for Sony FE 14mm GM is 65.5mm. In Marelux terms this would be 50mm with the Marelux 230mm port and you could go to 45mm with about the same results. I own the Sony FE 14mm and it is a nice lens but as 121 pointed out above you are paying GM prices for a lens that begins to have issues underwater even in the 230mm port. I reviewed the Rokinon/Samyang 14mm F/2.8 AF for Sony lens in issue #122 (Jan/Feb2020) of UWPMAG.com and as was indicated above the minimum focus distance is 20cm not 25cm as with the Sony 14mm. This improves the ability of the lens to work well in a dome port. At the time of testing I was also working on a review for the Aquatica A7R IV housing. Aquatica had provided a 200mm acrylic dome port and the best extension choice I had was the 28.5mm extension. While I would recommended that best results would be with the 230mm dome the Rokinon is by far the best value in a 14mm for UW use. In addition to the MFD of 20cm the lens also goes to F/22 unlike the Sony which stops at F/16. The difference between Sony F/1.8 and Rokinon F/2.8 is not very relevant for use underwater. For me I don't see enough difference between the two lenses underwater to warrant spending the GM price. For land use this of course would be a different story. This lens does not appear on anyones port charts except perhaps Ikelite. My review is a free PDF download from the back issues at uwpmag.com. For Adventurer the Nauticam to Marelux extension difference for the N120 to N100 35.5mm port adapter is 15 to 20mm, so if 121 has calculated 35mm of extension on top of the 35.5 adapter your starting point should be 55mm of extension for your Marelux housing and 230mm dome port. This however also vignettes and my recommendation would be 40mm of extension. I think 121 is also wrong for Nauticam and may want to actually have the lens to test before posting recommendations. The 40mm for Marelux with 230mm port and 28.5mm with 200mm port for Aquatica seem to be more in line. So for Nauticam the 35.5 adapter and maybe 10mm would be closer to the mark. You may also want to consider the excellent Laowa 10mm F/2.8 to F/22 auto focus lens for Sony FE and Z cameras if you are willing to get on the rather long waiting list. This lens is reviewed in the current issue of uwpmag.com and is about half the price of the Sony FE 14mm GM and the Laowa has minimum focus of 12cm. The setup is the Rokinon 14mm, Marelux Sony A1 housing, Marelux 230mm dome and 40mm extension. Images are uncropped with no sharping. Steps F13, splits F/22, below water thermometer F14, pool light F/13 at 15cm.

For those interested I spent three weeks at Scuba Seraya in September 2023. Beach and boat diving up and running.

You may want to consider the Matty Smith 12 inch dome (305mm) with your desired lens. This port cost half as much as the 230mm glass domes and weights 1.75K(3.4lb) with neoprene cover compared to around 2.67K (5.89lb) for glass. The dome is rated to 2 meters which makes it very useful for things like Sharks, Whalesharks, Sailfish and other subjects near the surface. It also pairs nicely with the new Laowa 10mm F/2.8 AF lens ($799.00US) which has a max aperture of F/22. I have reviewed both.

Hi Brandon, I hope all is well in the great Northwest, I assume you have quite the light show going on at night up there. I don't know about the license but it ia odd to me that Laowa does in fact make the lens for full frame Canon RF and the L mount just not in auto focus. My AF lens has the 5-blade aperture while the manual lenses come in 5 and 12 blades. Did you get rid of all the Sony stuff?

I am assuming you are referring to the UWP article and not this thread regarding 140 dome images. First when you submit to a magazine the Editor makes the choice of what images are used not the contributor. Second the image of the mask with bubbles was taken with the 140mm dome but that information was not included in the description. For me the 140mm dome with 35mm of extension was more than excerptible and the 180mm port was not. As I expressed this is a travel issue for me more than a IQ issue. If I don't have room for the 230mm port I can use the 140 port. I have reattached two of the images taken with the 140 dome system also pictured. null

I am sure all interested are eagerly awaiting the July arrival and subsequent "structured testing" which will be forthcoming. For now you may be interested in my uwpmag.com review of the Laowa 10mm which posted yesterday. I would add that in the review I commented that, If you have no tolerance for soft corners in your images this may not be the lens for you. This is by no means the fault of the lens but the result of using such a wide rectilinear lens in a dome port.

This would be a little closer to accurate.

Yes I understand your question and the answer is that so far and I will continue to use both ports U/W I don't see huge differences. On the off topic of the splits I have the 12 inch Matty Smith acrylic port which I have not yet used, so that recommendation will be a topic for another day. I am not in the habit of commenting on equipment I have never used and speculation is a just that. What I would say is the Laowa lens has 77mm filter threads which will allow me to use my 77mm grad neutral density filter for splits which could be an advantage and I also have the S&S 77mm correction lens to test. Not sure the S&S would add ant value to a fixed lens this wide. I am not clairvoyant so I will resort to my old school method of doing pool tests.

I will also be trying the Matty Smith 12 inch dome port at some point soon to see how it works with the Laowa for splits.

I think he is suggesting that the sunshade needs to be removed from the 140mm port all the time when in fact it only needs to be removed if you want to shoot the 8mm circular fisheye end of the lens.

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.