Phil Rudin

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.

I agree that Isotta is not the only manufacture that lists smaller ports for very wide rectilinear lenses like 12 and 14mm zooms and fixed lenses. I think the issue is that for several reasons many photographers don't want the expense, travel issues and more of using ports like 230 and 250mm. Many of those folks understand the tradeoffs of smaller domes V. corner sharpness and using higher F/numbers. I think all manufactures should explain this and manage expectations for smaller ports with very wide lenses otherwise way would anyone buy larger ports. It seems that around 17mm is the benchmark for ports in the 170mm range using the proper extension.

Isotta have a rather naive approach to recommended port sizes, they also recommend the much larger 9" (228mm) for the 14mm zooms which I am sure would preform much better than the 6.5 or 8 inch domes. Isotta at this time does not appear to support the Z 17-28mm which focuses to 19cm and looks quite like the Tamron 17-28mm so should do well behind the 8" dome. One of the advantages of mirrorless is the adaptability of none brand lenses like the new (coming in April) Laowa 10mm F/2.8 which focuses to 12cm for Nikon Z and the ability to mount lenses for Sony FE using an adapter. A good choice with the Nikon Z to Sony FE adapter might be the Rokinon 14mm F/2.8 which focuses to 20cm. I chose examples of auto focus fixed lenses because you would not need to deal with a custom zoom gear, only choosing a proper port/extension combination. Quite a few Nikon Z owners are using the adapted Sony FE 28-70 with WACP-lenses.

I have used the Nauticam lube without issues.

I agree with 121 that proper port size and extension length are required for best corner results and of course full frame suffers more than sub full frame given the same F/number. However I have done a number of tests using like equipment, example Tamron 17-28mm and Sony FE 16-35mm PZ in 180mm dome with and without the S&S conversion lens and the S&S always bests the native lens by at least one stop. I have also used the S&S lens on fixed lenses like Zeiss Batis 18mm with similar results. I also agree with 121 bout minimum focus the Sony 16-35 PZ minimum is 24cm, Tamron 17-28 is 19cm and the Sigma 17mm F/4 has a minimum focus of 12cm. For wide rectilinear I would chose the Sigma 17mm over the other two even without the S&S because of the close focus. It is outstanding in a 180mm port but I have also used it in a 140mm port because it can focus closer than most fisheye lenses. To get a one stop increase for $600.00ish is the question and it appears that several have found this worth the cost especially if the alternative is an expensive water contact lens. The second issue is if you are on team rectilinear or on team fisheye. Many would rather just go fisheye to reduce corner issues. Image is the Sigma 17mm F/4 in the 140mm dome port at F/11 with the port glass touching the pool light glass, A/V light.

Regarding using the Sony FE 28-60mm with WACP-1 the issue is that the lens fully extended is about 15mm shorter than the 28-70mm. With 28-70 Nauticam recommended the N120 20 II extension. On N120 you would in theory be left needing a 5mm extension. With WACP-C you have the same issue with 15mm of extension for the 28-70mm. Another option because it is longer could be the Tamron 17-50mm F/4. I have used this lens in a Marelux A7R V housing with the WACP-C using 77mm of extension (the Nauticam N100 to Marelux adapter is 17mm and allows direct mount of the 28-60) With the Tamron I can zoom from 27mm to 50mm without vignetting. So a bit wider than 130 degrees to around 87ish degrees.

With the UWT trigger and the new Marelux Apollo III strobes TTL/HSS and MTL all work using fiber optic cords. I am not a fan of TTL so most of my tests so far have revolved around the HSS and MTL which I would actually use. I posted some macro images with the strobes here and some test photos on my Facebook page Phil Rudin if you are interested. I no longer own the Turtle so I have no results from that trigger.

Results from my first macro tests with the new Marelux Apollo III strobes. Excellent color with no hot spots. All shot with the Sony 90mm macro, ISO-100, 1/250th sec. All at F/18 and F/20 (first image), lots of power. No color adjustments made to any of the images. Any concerns over the listed 6200K color temp seem unfounded.

I have used it several places and it has one issue. It needs to be pushed about 3/4th's of its length into the bottom which may seem easy but in several places I have used it I hit solid bottom before it was far enough in to prevent I from falling over even with the lightest strobe like MF-1 or MF-2. When you can get it far enough into the bottom it works great. At places like Blur Heron Bridge some spots are no problem while others are not. Definitely a product I would recommend as long as you are aware of its limitations.

Beautiful critter and a great diversity of dives around Calpe. I dived there several years ago for a week and everything from caverns to excellent macro subjects. Also nice to see images from a FujiFilm camera for a change.

I have the 180 straight version if that may be of interest.

Hi Chip, First the UWTechnic triggers are outstanding and I have used them with both the A-1 and A7R V in both Nauticam and Marelux housings. I have also done hundreds of dives with both cameras in Marelux and the A1 in Nauticam with zero problems. I have always tended to overdue on pulling the vacuum and on Marelux I use the auto vac which makes it even easer to do again with no problems. Pavel has been nothing short of outstanding in responding to any questions I have had including additional info beyond specs for some articles I had written. On a recent trip to Bali I also used the UWT trigger with two Backscatter MF-2's to test the HSS for macro and wide use. I was shooting the A7R V in both wide and macro (much more in macro) and again no issues between the 1/250th max (mechanical) and I topped out at 1/800th. I have never used electronic and god forbid manufactures all go that way without globel shutter. On a personal note, will you be at the Feb 6th meeting I have some Nauticam items for you.

Hi @DreiFish I would be interested to know how you measured color temp and power, I assume a light/color meter but the type or any details are not listed. Thanks for all the work that goes into such testing.

This is the current information on the Apollo Nano. The new Apollo Nano has a GN of 22 and 0.2 second recycle time. Marelux will have a new dock that will allow use of the Soft snoot, color filters and small dome. This will be a great option for off camera lighting using the wireless Lumilink remote flash triggering system. At only 14oz. this will also be a very travel friendly option. Marelux announced Apollo Nano, 395 grams net weight on land, 35x60x128mm (main body size), full power recycle time 0.2s ，gn 22 support TTL , RC , HSS. continuous flashes,. support wireless trigger, with one fiber port. one knob easy control, LCD display. one 18650 lithium battery. nullnull Regarding in-water weight the Apollo III, according to the specs is 125 grams (4.41oz) with the three batteries and ball mount.

The fact remains that in the Edward Lai interview from the Boot Show he is very clear that as a result of Nauticam's testing so far the Sony FE 28-60 is the best possible choice for the FCP-1 on full frame. While a Nikon-Z 28-60 would be a great addition to the line the Z 24-50mm (not RF 24-60) seems to be the best choice for Z-cameras even though it does not allow full zoom through.