Phil Rudin

This lens has now been posted on the Nauticam web site for $6941.00US no photos or description at this time and no listing in the port charts. Will be interesting to see the initial list of supported lenses. Listed as 170 degrees with a 28mm FF lens.

Like 121 I own the Sony FE 14mm GM and it is an exceptional lens popular with astro photographers because it's a bright F/1.8 wide open. With Circular fisheye I would point out that corner sharpness is a bit of a moot point making center sharpness much more relevant. I would also point out that circular images like Phoebe's while lovely add an interesting prospective that for some should be used sparingly. I have been using the Canon 8-15mm for over eight years now and find myself using the 15mm FF end of the lens much more than the circular fisheye end. To that end I would offer a second choice for use with the FCP for circular shots. I have used the Rokinon 14mm F/2.8 lens for several years in both the 230mm port and an eight inch Aquatica acrylic port. The Rokinon also branded Samyang, focuses 5cm closer than the Sony 14 at 20cm is about 2.3 mm shorter so extensions won't be much different and in the US it is $500.00 v. the $1500.00 for the Sony. At F/8and F/11 the lens has great center sharpness and is usable into the corners even on high MP cameras. As an occasional circular fisheye shooter this lens may offer better value without noticeable loss of image quality.

The Tamron 17-50mm does appear softer in the corners by optical limits and others standards v. the Tamron 17-28mm and it is also an F/4 v. F/2.8. Also by Optical Limits standards the Sony FE PZ. 16-35mm F/4 is better than both of Tamron lenses and if you are using the Nauticam zoom gear the price difference is about $60.00US considering you don't need a zoom gear for the PZ 16-35mm. The PZ 16-35mm F/4 is smaller than the 17-28mm especially without a zoom gear. It also will work in a 180mm dome although Nauticam has its best performance in a 250mm dome. At Camera Labs the Sigma 17mm F/4 is hands down the best preforming lens at 17mm, the PZ 16-35 and Sony 20-70 F/4 are second and Tamron 17-28 F/2.8 is third. It all depends on whos reviews you are reading, if they have reviewed all the lenses you want to compare and did they use the same parameters when evaluating each lens. When you add in port size and design, along with extension lengths across all manufactures the small differences in land lens reviews may not make much difference in the final image as you have pointed out regarding the excellent Sony FE 16-35mm F/2.8 II GM.

Let me start over, sorry for not looking at Nauticam port charts before commenting. I would be old school Nauticam where everything was done with an N100 to N120 35.5 port adapter. Now the Nauticam 180mm port is made in both N100 and N120 so I am assuming you are using the N100 to N120 35.5 adapter plus 55mm of extension so a total of 90.5mm of extension. I am also assuming that the lens needs to be mounted from the front of the housing and then the port, extension is mounted over the top. Do you know it the lens will fit in the N100 extension?

Hi Alex, This is how they look side by side with the N100 to N120 35.5 extension on the Nauticam and the N120 to Marelux 20mm extension on the Marelux housing with the 28-60 zoomed to 28mm. I used both configurations with the WACP-1. So in the 13mm to 15mm range sounds about right, if both are flush with the end of the ring the difference would seem to be 15.5mm. With the N100 to Marelux for WACP-C the lens would appear to be closer to the lens.

Am I correct in assuming that the 55mm over 50mm recommendation is for a 180mm port on Nauticam and the 60 port chart for 230mm is untested at this time because the review is a bit vague in that regard.

Perhaps the result of a difference in housings and the extension lengths used. I think you may have been on to something with wanting a 25mm or 20mm Nauticam extension for WACP-C with 28-60. I thought the same after seeing the diffrrence between the two Brands and the reduced flare over the 30mm extension.

The F-stoppers announcement is in fact the lens I was referencing and the video is all I have seen so far from Venus Optics. The lens will be small and it will come in auto focus versions for full frame Sony FE and Nikon Z. Minimum focus is 12cm, close for a 130 degree rectilinear so I suspect you may be able to get away with using this lens in a 180mm port although larger will have better corners. Should be interesting to see how it will work for CFWA. Also how apparent DOF will look V. a wet wide lens at the same AOV. Also if the S&S 77mm correction lens will add value in a 230mm or 180mm port.

For Colby, While I found the classic 94 degrees of the 20mm F/1.8 worked very well in the 180mm port my current preference for a wide rectilinear prime would be the Sigma 17mm F/4 for Sony full frame. This lens is wider at 103.7 degrees but even more exceptional is its 12cm (4.7") minimum focus distance v. the 18cm (7.08") of the 20mm. I have tested this lens with 15mm and 20mm extensions in the Marelux housing with the 180mm and 140mm ports. Because of its very close minimum focus distance it will do in a pinch with the 140mm port I use for fisheye zoom lenses. Second I would go to the 180mm port in N100 to avoid the expense of the N110 to N120 adapter as you can use the N100 port extensions for other lenses. Regarding the issue of making port extension comparisons between Marelux and Nauticam I offer the two photos below which show the Sony 28-60mm lens in both housings extended to 28mm. The Oliver Green Marelux housing has the 20mm Nauticam N120 to Marelux 5" extension which I use for WACP-1 and Matty Smith 12 inch dome for splits. The Black Nauticam housing has the N100 to N120 35.5mm port adapter also for the WACP-1 and 12 inch dome. As you can see the lens in both images is in the same plane with the end of the adapter. So by quick mental calculation the difference between the two is 15.5mm 35.5mm-20mm=15.5mm. Using 15.5 as the difference does not always reflect the corresponding recommended extensions for Marelux or Nauticam. They both do testing and come to a conclusion for each dome size. Regarding the 7-14mm on 4/3 and M4/3 I gave up on the 170/180 ports and went to Zen 200mm with a noticeable difference in corners using the extension of my choice since none was on any port chart. I have also included an image of WACP-C on Marelux adapter and the Sigma 17mm in a 140mm port with the port glass touching the pool light.

All of the tests were with WACP-C, all from the same fixed spot, first with Nauticam, 28-60 and 30mm extension, Second Marelux housing with the 17mm N100 to Marelux adapter, third with the Tamron 28-75 in the Marelux housing with the Marelux 17mm N100 to Marelux adapter and Marelux 30mm extension. Be aware that the Tamron will not zoom through all the way and will hit the rear of WACP-C like it does in the Nauticam with this lens and WACP-1. All were at the 28mm setting and the 28-60 gives full zoom through on both housings.

Regarding the Nauticam recommendation for n100/30 for WACP-C I had posted images on WP showing a wider AOV with the Marelux extension which can also be found in another thread on this site. Regarding the WP post Ryan advised that Nauticam chose the longer extension to avoid vignetting. Hardly apples to apples between Nauticam and Marelux so to each their own I guess. Will be interested to see if Nauticam makes the N100 extension in 20mm.

First of all I have used the Inon Z-220, Z-240, Z330 with upgrades line of strobes on over 4000 dives around the world, so not just in the pool although you can learn a lot testing in the pool but only as a starting point for real world use. Regarding the focus light power is the same as type I and how it works with snoots has more to do with the snoot than the strobe. Some favor a focus/modeling light which is centered in the middle of the strobe while others are more forgiving. The Z330 type I actually has the fly-eye coating directly over the flash tubes. The reason this was changed for type II is better coverage and less hot spots.

Chris, These are not things I don't already know, all I said is that with wet lenses extension can change the AOV. If you have 4mm of difference between a macro lens front element and a +15 wet closeup lens you get more magnification (Narrower view) than if you have 8mm of difference. Same is true for the Recommended N100 30mm on a Nauticam housing for the WACP-C. Change the extension length and you change the AOV. Plenty of other housings can support WACP-C, WACP-C, WWL-! and so on but not all have exactly the same length from the front of the 28-60 lens. Attached photos, first 28mm with Nauticam Sony A1 housing with N100/30 extension, second Marelux A1 housing with recommended 17mm extension, third Tamron 28-75mm at 28mm. AOV is different with each land lens.

My results when using the Z330 Type II compared to Z240 and Z330 Type I were quite different. For me I found a noticeable difference in light distribution V. the older models while maintaining the same amount of power. The light was more well controlled across the frame while having a softer look. Just looking at the strobes side by side it is easy to see how harsh spots should be better controlled. If as some suggest adding a diffuser will resolve the issue with the original version then how would you assume the Fly-eye would not make a difference. The diffuser also defeats the purpose of going from Z240 to Z330 because it takes away the extra stop of light gain. I am all for getting a bargain but to assume the Z330 will be apples to apples with the Z330 Type II is just wrong. I will be very interested to see what Inon has as a Z330 II replacement. For context I owned the first two Inon Z220's imported into the US and have owned Inon strobes ever since. My Z-330 II review is in issue #122, back issues at uwpmag.com.

Hi Craine, I originally owned the Zeiss 50mm M and 12mm F/2.8 Touit lenses back when my first Sony camera was the NEX-5 and then a move to NEX-7. At the time they for me were the best choices available for Sony APS-C. I have also used these lenses plus the Sony E 10-18, Sony E 24m and Sony FE 90mm macro most recently with A6400. For me the two Zeiss lenses are still the best choices for overall image quality along with the Sony FE 90mm macro. None of these lenses are going to approach the focus speed on A6400 that they do on the more modern focusing systems used in cameras like Sony A1, A7R V and A9 III. Adapted lenses like the Canon/Nikon 60mm macro present challenges and you will gain NO increase in AF speed over the Zeiss 50 macro. Several manual focuses choices with excellent image quality are available but those require custom focus gears and port length issues may arise. Regarding the 90mm macro on APS-C I use it all the time on the A-1 and A7R V when I want to extend focal lengths with respectable file sizes in APS-C from both cameras. I also use the Sony FE 50mm F/2.8 macro but sparingly and mostly for dinner plate size fish portraits. It appears that 2024 is going to be a stellar year for quality after market lenses like the Venous Optics AF FE 10mm F/2.8 Dreamer and many more. Perhaps we will see some quality macro lenses in new focal lengths and please give use an AF Fisheye Zoom for ANY mirrorless camera. I have been using an adapted Canon 8-15mm Fisheye zoom on Sony FE for over eight years now and it is a mystery to me that every manufacture of mirrorless full frame cameras has simply ignored customers requests for a fisheye. U/W shooters are not the only ones that use these lenses. Just about every sports shooter I know from Olympics to snow-boarding/skate-boarding and many many more have always had a fisheye in their DSLR bag, why not for mirrorless? Sorry for the off topic rant.

I think we would agree that with rectilinear lenses and with any given dome port (180/230) that within reason the the amount of extension used can change corner sharpness but not the AOV of the lens. This is not necesarily the case with the wet wide lenses like WACP-C/WACP-1. Changing the extension length can widen or narrow AOV and also change corner sharpness. So none of the calculations for the 28-60 lens are necessarily correct in the example above.

As 121 pointed out above the higher the MP's the more noticeable the flaws in any give lens will become, this is also true for sensor size. A 33MP full frame will show more flaws than a 33mp APS-C sensor. Regarding AOV, the 20-70 is 94 degrees at the wide end, the Tamron 17-28 is 103.48 degrees at the wide end and the WWL-1/1B, WACP-C and WACP-1 are all around 130 degrees using a lens at 28mm. Keep in mind that the wet wide lenses like WWL-1/1B add a bit of a fisheye look. Not at all like the Canon/Nikon 8-15mm Fisheye lenses but also not apples to apples compared to the Sony and Tamron rectilinear lenses. I have used all of these lenses with the respective domes and extension recommendations along with all four of the excellent Nauticam Wide Angle Conversion lenses. I have used WWL-1 and 1B, WAPC-C and WACP-1 all with the Sony FE 28-60, as well as other lenses like the Sony FE 28-70mm, Sony FE 28mm F/2, Panasonic 14-42 PZ, Tamron 28-75mm and the Tamron 17-28mm with WACP-2. Regarding the Sony FE 20-70mm F/4 Nauticam recommend the 250mm port for best results and with the Tamron 17-28mm F/2.8 Nauticam recommends the 180mm for best results. While I have not run tests with the Nauticam 250mm port I have used the 20-70 with 230mm and 180mm ports. As you would expect at 20mm the corners become a bit soft V. larger ports but for me it was not a deal breaker because I was using the lens more often in the 50 to 70mm range while using the 17-28mm in the 180mm port for wider shots. My port extension lengths vary when testing with My Marelux A1 and A7R V housings but the 180mm and 230mm ports sizes remain the same. I also use a 12 inch (305mm) port for surface and split shots so have a very good idea how the 17-28 works in a very large port. For someone already shooting the Sony 20-70mm in the 170/180mm dome you may also want to consider the Tamron 17-50 for a better range or the stellar Sigma 17mm F/4 which I have used in both the 180mm and 140mm ports with excellent results. While I like the versatile of a 17 to 28/50 the Sigma 17mm prime is excellent because it will focus to 1:3.8 at 12cm (4.7 inches) this is closer than Tamron 17-28mm or Tamron 17-50mm which both focus to 19cm on the wide end of the lens. As has also been pointed out some favor ultimate corner sharpness while others (the lions share I believe) are willing to overlook this small detail of the total image. To prove my point you only need look at the latest photo contests like the recent DPG contest where an esteemed panel of judges have not really given a lot of weight to stellar corner sharpness but rather to the overall impact of the winning images. You can fins reviews for several of these lenses both dry and wet in back issues at uwpmag.com by putting my name into the back issue search engine. I also intend to test the (coming soon) Venus Optic 10mm for full frame Sony cameras. This will be the first auto focus lens from the well respected lens maker and should have a very close focus distance in around the 12cm range. Venus 10mm would be a 130 degree rectilinear AOV with a 77mm filter thread which is perfect for my Sea & Sea 77mm conversion lens.

These items should be in stock in the US by January at marelux.co and then available from retailers.

When I reviewed the original Soft Snoot in winter 2022 Marelux was asking for feedback from all of its users and the two biggest gripes were size and weight, followed by power of the focusing light with 18650 battery. That feedback led to the second generation Soft Pro with the reduced size and smaller battery compartment which used a smaller battery with not much more power. At DEMA in November Marelux began showing the newest Smart Optical Flash Tube Light which comes in three styles based on user feedback. The Soft Light retains the same design as the downsized model but with a larger battery compartment for a bigger and more powerful 21700 battery with both red and white focus lights. Because it has been made from plastic it is even lighter. The Light XW and XR models are also plastic and have the same 21700 battery but if you look at the rear element of the Soft you will see it is designed to allow more of the strobes flash to enter the tube giving it a higher flash output. The tradeoff is that you only get one choice for the focus light XW-white light or the XR-red focus light only. The red is popular for those using the Soft for night photography of subjects sensitive to white light. I have attached photos for size comparison to the original and the different back elements. You can go. to marelux.co to enlarge the rear element photos.

If you look at the Nauticam dome selections you will see that the 250mm and 180mm are shown as wide angle domes while the 230mm and 140mm are listed as "Fisheye" domes. On full frame this will make a difference and of course with the 8mm end of the 8-15mm fisheyes you will need to remove the dome shades. If splits and photos at or near the surface is all you intend to do with a large dome port on FF I would also consider the Matty Smith Photo 12 (305mm) or 17 (432mm) inch acrylic domes. I own the 12 inch model which can only be used to two meters and is great for snorkeling with large animals, reef scenes and more. It is much lighter than glass, comes in several different mounts including Nauticam, it has no shade to interfere with the 8mm end of the 8-15 fisheye and is less expensive at around $1190.00US plus shipping from Australia. I have used the 12 inch dome with both fisheye and wide rectilinear lenses like the Sony FE 12-24mm F/2.8. It works very well with both. My review is in issue #130 at uwpmag.com in the back issues. mattysmithphoto.com

I have used both UWT and Turtle and they are both excellent. I chose the UWT for Sony because I like the battery's rather than charging and I also like that when you switch the camera on it is ready to use. With the Turtle it needed to be turned on/off on the unit like the Nauticam trigger you are using. Perhaps this may be an issue of aging I forgot to turn the trigger on several times. I have used the UWT with A7R IV/V and A1. It works very well with the Backscatter MF -2 strobes in HSS and I will be trying it soon with the Marelux Apollo strobes in TTL, HSS and MTL.

I already own the 17-50mm along with the other lenses you have listed above. I intend to use the lens with the Marelux 180mm dome port but have not yet worked out the extension length. With the 17-28mm I use 60mm extension and I suspect I will need about 15mm more for the 17-50mm. I also shoot the excellent Sigma 17mm F/4 with the Marelux 180mm port and 20mm extension. I will post results when I am able to do a full test of ports and extensions. Shooting with Sony A1 and A7R V.

I was told 1st quarter 2024. They have the full production models at the DRT show in Hong Kong this week.

Today Marelux has updated its Apollo strobe line, the Apollo 33 will now be the first strobe released and it will now be called Apollo III. After a major testing process these strobes have well exceeded expectations. The Apollo III will now have an industry high guide number of 44. This was an unexpected benefit of building the entire strobe in-house and developing Marelux own flash tubes. I have attached the new specs for Apollo III. The Apollo 44 will now become Apollo X likely having an even higher guide number and Apollo 28 will become Apollo S. You can see a video of the strobes working with the Lumilink wireless flash trigger on my Phil Rudin Facebook page. Can't figure out how to attach in this post it anyone would like to add the video please do. Product Features 1. Support TTL, Olympus RC, HSS 2. With a special designed MTL mode, support continuous flashes 3. With 2 fisheye wireless signal sensor units. Plus one fiber port, sensor coverage 100 °. Wireless trigger supports M, MTL, HSS. (TTL modes,RC needs fiber) 4. GN.ISO 100 : 44 (tested on land) 5. Scattering angle 110 ° （under water） 6. Temp 6200k 7. With dome diffuser, scattering angle 140 °, Temp 5500k 8. Full power recycle time 0.6 second 9. Max diameter 90mm, length of main body 150mm,full length including knobs 177mm 10. Weight on land 960 grams (without battery, with ball mount),1095 grams with 3x18650 batteries (with ball mount) 11. Weight in water 125 grams (including 3x18650 batteries, including ball mount) 12. Battery: 3x18650 lithium batteries. 135 grams total 13. Water proof battery chamber 14. Full power flash : around 800 times 15. With 2 aiming light colors, 250 lumen on white, 180 lumen on red 16.Waterproof Depth : 100m

The D200 Type 2 is a retool of the D2000 Type 4. The Guide Number remains at 20 with the rounded Fly-eye front dome rather than the old flat port. Unlike the Z240 the D200 is fiber optic only. At $540.00US V. $400.00 for the S220 it seems the S220 would be the better choice. Not hard to deduce that an Inon Z330 replacement will be announced at some point.