Phil Rudin

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.

Yes a dock will be made again in the first quarter.

A Soft dock is being made for Ikelite DS 230 for release later this quarter.

I tried the Inon ND filters for Z330/D200 that were according to Inon more directly designed for still shooters wanting to shoot macro at wide open F/numbers like @.8/1.8/1.4. I have done the same thing for years by using a 67mm DH filter threaded onto the macro port or other sizes threaded to the lens. Not indicated what lens you are using but you may want to give the land filters a try.

All in for the strobe and housing is around $1000.00US and the sad news is that it fires fiber optically but only in manual mode and while I can see a number of controls on the rear of the housing the info page does not indicate if you can take advantage of any of the top side features like HSS, variable color temperature, wireless trigger and more. The Subal housings offer a five pin Nikon's type cord that at least allows TTL.

Chip is Correct about the R&D costs being reflected in the retail cost at release. This is apparent when you look at the cost of the Nauticam housings for Hasselblad and PhaseOne Medium format cameras both in access of $11,000.00 US and both made in very limited quantities. These housings and the FCP are "If you build it, he/she will come" type products and I expect they will come.

You appear to be correct in your assumption that this is a rebranded Scubalamp (SUPE) D-pro strobe, the only apparent difference is the $100.00 higher price for the GTX. The front page of my review of D-pro is attached, you can read the full review in uwpmag.com back issues.

Let me answer the second question first, yes you will need the Soft dock for Apollo strobes because the front element of the strobe is a dome not flat. Cost $149.00 US. Regarding color temperatures this is a discussion I had with Marelux when the idea of a strobe line was in the planning stages. Marelux had several of the very well known strobes in house for testing the different docks for the Soft snoots. They acquired a new Sekonic C800 flash meter that has a color temp readout. It should be no surprise that all but one of the strobes read from 6600K to 8000K and the one exception was 5900K. For years we have seen very dodgy guide numbers coming from a verity of manufactures. Some enhanced by reducing the AOV of the strobes to less that 100 degrees and a verity of other over estimated power levels. Marelux have said the color temp of its strobes will be 6200K and 5500K with a defuser. I have not been able to find a comparison test that actually uses a light meter to evaluate GN or color temp. I suspect the Marelux Apollo line with be in the same color temp range or lower than many of the current offerings. I anyone has done these tests it would be nice to see the results. I have attached a photo of the Apollo III dock.

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.