dentrock

Thanks for the test. The bottom RH corner shots seem sharper than the others (3rd and 2nd last pics). Any chance there are some focus issues eg. small target / camera close to target and not square on?

Sold on Waterpixels. N85-N120 50mm adapter still FS.

Or you could use it at a fixed focal length i.e. 18mm (=28mm FF equiv) behind most domes dome. It's sharp enough!

Hmmm... AUD 200 now! (that's about USD 130 right?)

Heading further down the slippery slope of price reduction! AUD 1200 for the housing bundle inc vac valve (if you don't want the vac valve I'll take a further 200 off). That' under USD 800 !!!!

I bought (and sold) this lens for UW with my A6400. Yes it has short MFD at 18, but very long MFD at 50. I had hoped to use it with my Nauticam 140 dome, but it wouldn't focus towards the 50 end. A larger dome is needed, say 180, which I didn't have. Plus with the Nauticam system you have to make your own zoom gear to use with an adapter, and once you do that, you have to remove port and lens before you can remove the body from the housing. All in all a pia. OK for land, but nowhere near as good (for land) as the Sony 16-55 G.

I'm doing my masking in ACR (actually all my processing now, except BSXT). I don't need to create layers - it's all done for you in ACR. The changes are stored in another sidecar file .acr along with my original Sony .arw and .xmp files.

I think it might work for you, as it's only a filter plus an action,but why not ask Erin? I get not wanting to download a trial, but if you do that, you can also access Erin's excellent tutorial, which gives far more info than the fairly unhelpful advertorial clip at the beginning of this thread. Incidentally, I see BSXT as the solution to intractable backscatter problems, where you want to rescue a pic, but it's all too hard or impossible to do it manually. For minimal backscatter, either ignore it or remove the few spots manually. FYI Erin says to run BSXT after global processing, but before local processing (which I assume means masking). I just did a test on a pic which I processed globally then did a bunch of brush masks in ACR, before running BSXT as the very last thing, then saving the result as a jpeg copy (and not saving the PSD / TIF). It worked fine. The pic was taken only to check the extent of the area of central sharpness with the SONY 20-70 using the 140 dome.

I got keen and contacted Ern Quigley, who replied promptly and most helpfully. The short answer is (for my workflow using Mac): 1. Open Sony arw raw file in ACR. 2. Process globally as needed, inc noise reduction. 3. With ACR still open, click "Open" in bottom RH corner. This opens the file in PS. 4. Having installed BSXT as per instructions, run it. 5. Cleanup / adjustment if required. 5. Close file which will prompt a save - as PSD or TIF. These are very large; or 6. Do local adjustments, either in PS or you can go back to ACR from PS (Shift + Option + Command + E, then choose top layer and go to Filter > Camera Raw Filter). 7. You can then export (save) whatever format you want from ACR. 8. When you close the ACR file it will still prompt a save as PSD or TIF. If you don't save, you can always run BSXT again quite quickly if you need to. The Ern Quigley tutorial is excellent and clear. I bought it and it works well. Price? Fine for this sort of benefit.

I might have missed something (and I did watch the video linked at the start of this thread) but what types of files does it work with? I can't access the Ern Quigley tutorial without buying BXS... With all the recent advances in ACR, I can do all my post, including masking and noise reduction, on raw files in ACR (admittedly with PS running in the background), but I don't need to create PS layers and very rarely actually use PS. So can you use BXS on raw files? If not, then the suggestion to use BXS early in your post processing wouldn't work for me. I would have to use it at the end of my ACR workflow, converting a processed raw from ACR into something to open in PS in order to then use BSX. Would this sequence work OK?

Find a bricks and mortar camera store and try focusing inside in lowish light. I use AFC with tracking and medium spot. Don't know what Canon has to offer, but a modern lens and body should be fine. Check the lens reviews! With a dome, it's a good focal length for sharks up to about 2m in clear water, or close-ups of larger sharks. If the sharks are blending into the background you may have to focus on an edge before recomposing.

That's a lens I'd love to have for my Sony as a general / all purpose lens. Normal focal length macros work fine behind the 140 dome (eg Sony 50 and Zeiss 50). Have also used Nikkor 60 in the distant past with a small dome. Assuming you are talking Nauticam, the optical centre is about 6-7mm behind the 140 dome port face. You can estimate the EP for the lens (distance from lens mount flange to apparent location of diaphragm when viewed from the front), and having measured the distance from the lens flange to the housing port flange you can see what if any extension you will need. I don't know the Canon details, and I don't know if you need to use an adapter with your dome. With Sony FF, a 25mm adapter and no other extension works well, given a lens flange to port flange distance of 26-27mm. EPs for the above lenses are approx 43 and 48mm respectively. Misalignment with this combo is -3 (too long) for the Sony and +2 (not long enough) for the Zeiss. But bear in mind EPs can move as you focus close. Yours will be shorter I think. Macros / normal FOV lenses are pretty forgiving of inexact alignment. You can also use a 35 with a flat port, but the central area of sharpness will be disappointingly small.

I have the lens and I received the zoom gear for the 24-50 today. Item 37178. It fits the 16-25 nicely, subject to the usual Nauticam gear fitting issue of shuffling the little bits of rubber until you get a firm grip on the lens without trashing it. Incidentally I checked the Marelux port chart for 5" Sony and neither the Sony 16-25 nor the Laowa 10 are listed. That leaves only Ikelite and Aquatica supporting the Laowa 10, and possibly only Ikelite (which has, or used to have the most flexible lens gear system), potentially supporting the Sony 16-25. Others using other systems can advise if they like. I will dive test the 16-25 when weather permits, trying it first with the 140 (for travel), then the 180 domes. I estimated the EP for the 16-25 at 80mm from the lens mounting flange (at 16); 3mm longer than the 20-70 at 20. I will therefore start with extensions working for the 20-70, noting that the minimum focus distance is shorter for the 16-25.

Phil, have you tried the 16-25 in the 140 dome? Thoughts? Always interested in the most travel-friendly options. I'm finding the Laowa 10 very ordinary in the corners with the 140 (but good with the 8.5"). By the time you crop out the crappy bits in a 10/140 image, even at f16, you are back to 16mm equiv FOV or so.

I asked Nauticam if their zoom gear for the 24-50 would fit the 16-25, but they didn't reply. After studying the dimensions and design of both lenses, I am 90% sure it will, and may spring for the 16-25 during the black friday shenanigans.