Phil Rudin

Depends on your definition of macro. The 70-200 F/4 Macro focuses to 1:2 from 70 to 200mm Some may find the added distance to subject useful and others may not.

The MV-10 would be most like the SCM-1, Marelux has MV-15 which is about 11mm across full frame at 1:1 and you can also stack the two lenses and get around +23.

The very slightest of vignetting starts at 90mm and you could get buy down to about 88m. Working distance at 200mm using AF to get to minimum focus distance is 16.5cm at 1:2.

I dived several times with two of the fish ID guys and they are macro shooters, mostly in the 100mm range. Regarding the 20-70mm I posted results at 20, 45 and 70 on the first page of this thread using a 180mm dome. You can be the judge of the results. The 70-200 is already explained above along with the port specs.

I am moving this lens to a thread of its own if anyone is interested. I have attached some photos of the Marelux housing configuration and some test shots above water with the Sony FE 70-200mm F/4 macro. I actually took an interest in this focal length after a trip to Bali where both of my dive buddies were using the Nikon D850 and the Nikon 70-180mm F/4.5-5.6 AF-D Macro a lens discontinued in 2004. This is a 1:3.20 at 70mm to 1:1.32 at 180mmm lens. Both use Nauticam housings with modified ports with both flat or interchangeable curved ports. Marelux offered support for the Sony FE 70-200 F/4 1:2 macro as soon as it was released. Marelux recommends two configurations, one for 70-100mm behind a 67mm flat port and a different configuration for 100-200mm with the 67mm flat port. I am using the Sony 90mm macro lens port with a total of 75mm of extension which brings the total length to 172mm for the 100-200mm range. This would be a total of around 152mm port and extension for Nauticam A7R V users. The two different configurations are to prevent vignetting behind the small flat 67mm port due to the extension of the lens between 70mm and 200mm The Marelux zoom gear works flawlessly with the system as does the modern auto focus system. To zoom the complete range I will be trying the 140mm dome but I think this could also be done with the Nauticam N100 four inch dome. Not completely sure in the case of Nauticam. I have attached three images the first is at 200mm and 1:2 and the image is 68mm across or slightly less than 1:2. The second image is 200mm at 1:2 using the APS-C format. The third image is 200mm at 1:2 with the Marelux MV-10 closeup lens which brings the image to beyond life-size to about 2:1.

I have attached some photos of the Marelux housing configuration and some test shots above water with the Sony FE 70-200mm F/4 macro. I actually took an interest in this focal length after a trip to Bali where both of my dive buddies were using the Nikon D850 and the Nikon 70-180mm F/4.5-5.6 AF-D Macro a lens discontinued in 2004. This is a 1:3.20 at 70mm to 1:1.32 at 180mmm lens. Both use Nauticam housings with modified ports with both flat or interchangeable curved ports. Marelux offered support for the Sony FE 70-200 F/4 macro as soon as it was released. Marelux recommend two configurations, one for 70-100mm behind a 67mm flat port and a different configuration for 100-200mm with the 67mm flat port. I am using the Sony 90mm macro lens port with a total of 75mm of extension which brings the total length to 172mm for the 100-200mm range. This would be a total of around 152mm port and extension for Nauticam A7R V users. The Marelux zoom gear works flawlessly with the system as does the modern auto focus system. To zoom the complete range I will be trying the 140mm dome but I think this could also be done with the Nauticam N100 four inch dome. Not completely sure in the case of Nauticam. I have attached three images the first is at 200mm and 1:2 and the image is 68mm across or slightly less than 1:2. The second image is 200mm at 1:2 using the APS-C format. The third image is 200mm at 1:2 with the Marelux MV-10 closeup lens which brings the image to beyond life-size to about 2:1. Regarding the Tamron, I owned the latest version and ended up selling it when I got the much more useful 20-70mm.

I think the 180 dome is a better choice because of the 25cm minimum focus. I have gotten much better results with much wider rectilinear lenses that focus to 12cm with 140 port.

Wolfgang, "The UW Sony lens video mostly focuses on WA and macro and doesn't really go into the intermediate or longer range as it is of less interest to most divers. For me it does because I want to image fish of different size without having to back off too far. For zooms, they do mention the Sony 20-70mm F4 but not the 24-105mm F4 which for me is a more interesting focal length range. For primes, they mention the Sigma 150mm F2.8 macro which I looked at in my Canon 20D DSLR days but never bought. There is an even more extreme 180mm F3.5 'L' macro lens from Canon. I fear these are too specialized to warrant their cost but with DSLR users switching to mirrorless they should become more widely available as second hand options. Just checking the internet, the 150mm macro seems to go for only 300-400 Cnd$. Maybe that would be a fun experiment some day in the future. Or perhaps by then Sony has come out with a native longer focal length macro lens". First the 24 to 105mm has a Minimum focus of 38cm and goes to 1:3.2. The 20-70mm has a minimum focus of 25cm and goes to 1:2.6, no question the better choice. Sony already offers a 70-200mm F/4 macro that goes to 1:2. This is an excellent lens with very fast AF and can be used with additional C/U lenses and tele converters for more magnification.

Using the 24-105 behind a flat port would render the lens all but useless. When extended to 105 it only focuses to 1:3.2 as soon as you start to retract towards the 24mm end of the lens all you will be seeing is a circular image because it will vignette on the inside of the port. It has a longer extension than the 20-70 F/4 and other 24-70 lenses which also do the same thing inside a flat port. This is why it is paired with a dome and not a flat port. In a macro port Marelux or Nauticam the 90mm macro is a much better choice because it is internal focus and will go from 1:1 to infinity.

Thanks I got tired of shooting the well worn yellow duck.

Yas I do use arms for most configurations but in the pool this configuration (no arms) works just fine and since I have gone without arms for years I can assure you much wider scenes can be taken. To shoot this lens on wider subjects like wrecks for instance I would not likely be using this dome but would opt for the 230mm port and arms.

What is most interesting is that the referenced photo was taken with the 130 AOV Laowa 10mm in a 230mm dome with a 20mm extension at F/22. In the Marelux 140mm fisheye port with a 40mm extension and both shades for the lens and port removed the results at F/22 are quite similar even with the subject a bit further away from the dome, I am talking an inch or two. Notice the slight vignette in the lower corners. This ultra wide rectilinear lens is what keeps the lines straight from air to water. Also I don't imagine anyone here would have thought a rectilinear lens this wide would be working this well in a port largely used only for fisheye lenses. Because the 10mm focuses at 12cm unlike the Sony FE 16-35mm F/2.8 II which close focuses at 22cm and so needs a larger port even with a much narrower AOV the 10mm has exceeded my expectations. I would of course use the larger 230 or 12 inch ports for splits but it is nice to know it can be done with such a small port.

I had the original A7C which I just sold about two weeks ago, they are excellent little cameras and size wish can be quite small depending on lens selection. I used mine with the 28-60 and both WWL-1 and WACP-1 which makes for a very small package. Regarding all the talk about the max sync speed of 1/160th you could buy the UWTechnics Sony A7C/R flash trigger for Nauticam housing which is about $190.00US more than the Nauticam trigger and get HSS with your MF-2'S, Apollo III or Retra strobes using fiber plus other features like TTL with many other strobes. You need the same trigger to get above 1/250th with the A7R V so not a bad future upgrade.

Just to demonstrate the variations in manufacture temp specs I compared an Ikelite DS161, Inon Z330 and Marelux Apollo III using a Kenko Professional color temp meter designed to measure color temp. First the color temp increases as you lower the strobes power so Ikelite DS-161 had a color temp of 4870K at full power and at 1/4 power it was 4940K from the same one meter distance with the meter at the center of the strobe. With the Apollo III full power was 5660K and 5100K with the defuser. Inon had the highest color temp at full power it is 5970K and 5240K with the 4600K diffuser cap installed. Lots of variations for different meters and testing methods. It would be nice if this could be standardized across manufactures.

I have switched to 35mm of extension from the 40mm in the first shot.

I have owned both cameras and can make a case for either one, since I have been shooting Sony since A7 II let me comment on one lens choice. With out doubt the 90mm macro would be my lens of choice for 1:4 to beyond life-size. I chose to go with the Sony FE 20-70mm F/4 as the all purpose fish lens. It focuses to 25cm and has magnification of 0.39X (1:2.6) 24-105 max magnification is 1:3.2. Both of these lenses are supported by Marelux using a 180mm dome with 50mm extension for 20-70 and 70mm for 24-105mm they also work in the 230mm dome port. Nauticam lists 20-70 max performance with the 250mm dome but also lists domes down to 180mm. I don't see the 24-105 listed on the Nauticam charts perhaps because of its much longer extension. Turtle at 20mm, Razorfish at 70mm and Batfish at 45mm to give you some idea of the zoom range.

To answer Dentrock's questions the AF is excellent similar to shooting with the adapted Canon 8-15mm or any of the wide Sony lenses. Regarding using the 140mm port, #1 the shade needs to be removed to use an extension otherwise you will get sever vignetting. #2 I tried extensions out to 40mm, the attached photos are 140 dome and 40mm extension. With the Marelux 40mm on some images I got slight vignetting in two corners but not always. A Nauticam equivalent might be N100 to N120 35.5 plus a 20mm extension, however because the N120 diameter is about 7mm less that the Marelux it would be more likely to vignette. Perhaps a 10 or 15mm could be a better choice. I used the Laowa 10mm F/2.8 AF with the Sony A7R V, keep in mind it also comes in AF for Nikon Z users. I have been having serious issues with an air leak into the filter system for my pool and it is filled with micro bubbles currently. You can plainly see in the photos that it is creating issues for trying to test lenses at the moment. selfies shot with two Apollo III strobes mounted directly to the housing grips much like I often do with a fisheye lens. Also notice in the second image how straight the tiles are at the intersection in the corner of the pool. An obvious difference with the 10mm rectilinear over what you would see with a fisheye or wet wide lens with the same AOV. With the 140mm dome you need to shoot at or above F/13 if you expect to reduce the falloff in the corners. For some the corners will be a deal breaker with anything but a large fisheye type port. Because the 140mm and 230mm ports are fisheye ports while the 180mm's are not my choice would be to go with the 140mm for CFWA type situations, the 230mm for wide shots and for splits the 230 or 12 inch port like the Matty Smith ports preferably at F/22. I would also add that as you can see in the equipment photo Laowa has a white Logo and other info engraved on the front of the lens. I have tested with the 230, 180 and 140mm domes without a single reflection of the engravings off the port glass. All shots in overhead sunlight in less than four feet of water. A credit to the dome coatings being used by Marelux. The pool light is at F/16 and you can see the vignette in two corners. The corners are actually no worse than some of the same AOV wet wide lenses I have tried. Selfies are at ISO 320mm, F/22 and 1/320th sec in HSS mode on the strobes.

Shooting the 10mm with the 230mm dome begins to vignette with a 30mm extension so all of the remaining shots are with the 230mm and 20mm extension. I think 25mm may be ideal but don't have that combo and don't want to remove the shade on such a large dome. First images are the 230mm, 20mm extension at F/13 on the pool light and then back six inches. Pool steps at one meter and half meter at F/13. Splits on the glass at F/22 and at one meter.

I now have this lens for testing and these are a few of my early observations. #1 Because of the very close 12cm (4.72inches) minimum focus distance you can get by using this lens with a 180mm dome port if you are willing to put-up with some soft corners and if you are willing to remove the dome shade. The sweet spot for lens extension is in the 20-25mm range. I don't have a 25mm extension for Marelux at this time so all images are with the 20mm, in Nauticam terms this would be about the same as using the N100 to N120 35.5 port adapter with an N120 180mm port. The first two images of the pool light are touching the dome to the light and then moving back six inches, both shot at F/13. The pool steps are at about half a meter from the bottom step at F/8 and for comparison the Tamron E 28-75 F/2.8 G II at 28mm with WACP-1 at F/10. You can see that the 130 degree AOV between the two lenses looks about identical with the 10mm rectilinear having a very flat wall moving away from the steps and the WACP-1 having more of a fisheye look making the wells look angled rather than flat. Shell's window is also quite noticeable with the 10mm.

Since Chip and I are friends we discussed this issue at length and he will be borrowing my Sony FE 50mm to compare to the Zeiss 50mm he ordered. Other FF macro lenses exist like the shorter Sigma 70mm macro which I have also used and found to be not fit for U/W use. Regarding Olympus, the 30mm is the obvious choice for BW because the Pana 45 macro is way to slow and the 60mm is a bit long at a 120mm equivalent. Regarding image circle perhaps Chip will have some idea when he tests the Zeiss. All Sony FF U/W shooters would I am sure like to see more modern macro options including a super fast 50/60 and a new 90/100 that goes beyond 1:1. I am not holding my breath, it seems Sony would rather make yet another 50mm that is an F/1 or F/ 0.1 rather than lenses that people will buy. After ten years Sony still does not offer an AF fisheye or fisheye zoom. These are lenses they would sell in much larger numbers than another 50mm F/1.2.

Barmaglot, If you read my post you can clearly see that I am addressing the question within this thread about using an APS-C lens like the Ziess 50mm macro on a full frame camera like the A1 in Chip's case rather than the FF 90mm macro lens. In no way would I have ever recommended the 90mm macro on a Sony APS-C camera especially one as old as the A6300 body. I have also pointed out that the lens AOV on APS-C using 50 and 60mm macros is close to equal coverage as using the 90mm on full frame so BW distance to subject would be equal give or take a few mm depending on on a 1.5 or 1.6 crop factor. A 60mm equivalent would be more like using the Olympus/Pana 30mm lenses on M43 camera bodies. Regarding the CMC-2 I have used the 2 and the more powerful CMC-1 both on APS-C with the Zeiss 50mm macro with excellent results.

I have used all of these lenses and I don't believe the Zeiss 50 or the Canon 60 will be any faster than the Sony FE 50mm assuming they are all being used on the same Sony FF camera. Second we have been seeing excellent blackwater for years taken on APS-C with 60mm equivalent to 90mm on FF and with the Sony FE 90 macro, Canon 100 macro and Nikon 105mm lenses. I agree that adding a shorter lens allows for a different prospective but the idea that using an APS-C designed 50mm on a FF sensor is somehow going to be better than using the FF Sony 50 macro eludes me. I addition I know many of the excellent photographers shooting BW with lenses in the 90mm or greater equivalent range with FF, APS-C and M43 all are cropping results for most subjects. It seems to me that the 47 degree AOV would result in images needing even greater crops.

I am failing to grasp why you would want to use the Canon APS-C on full frame or the excellent Zeiss 50mm. With the 60mm you end up with an almost identical AOV V. the Sony 90mm macro which is very fast focusing on the current A1 and A7R V cameras. The Zeiss 50mm macro is 31 degrees V. 27 degrees for the Sony 90mm, not that much wider. By comparison the Sony FE 50mm F/2.8 macro is 47 degrees on full frame, noticeably wider. Add to that the fact that you need to calculate a port configuration. With the Sony 50 macro you use the 32 port that many already own for WWL-1/1B and an N100 40mm extension (I have this extension for sale). Last the Sony 50mm macro has excellent IQ and I think it will outperform the Zeiss 50 and Canon 60 for AF speed and accuracy. With APS-C cameras like Sony A6700 I would be recommending the Zeiss 50 but on full frame I just don't see much if any upside.

I think we should return to the original 50mm topic and yes at some point a new Laowa 10mm lens thread should be started.

Tino, like you I have been shooting Sony starting with A7II/RII and have progressed including A7C to now shooting A7RV and A1. I think you already own the best choice in the A7IV for the price point. Any slight difference in AF speed (and it is very small) V. A7CII is far out weighed by the much better EVF, 1/250th sync, dual card slots, less expensive housings V. A7R V, same sensor as A7C II and more. If you are looking at A7CR v. A7R V the cost difference is large but not like the A7C II differences. Already owning the A7IV camera also makes the transition a bit more tolerable.