dentrock

Well it does. But depends a bit on the skill of the photographer I suppose. But don't take my word - check out Alex Mustard's clip on "Curved Ports". He is quite a fan of the Sony 50 macro - especially behind a dome - as am I.

Sorry, I meant a shorter ext of course, to position the lens further into the dome... Compromise reached was 45mm total inc adapter (no shade). At 35mm, shade vignetted, but not the dome. At 55mm, dome vignetted badly (no shade) - not water tested. It is possible that in addition to fixed aperture, you might get away with fixed focus (at f11), provided you aren't trying to do CFWA... I also tested this lens with the 8.5" dome, but vignetting is worse, as expected, since the OC is approx 25mm behind the port flange. I won't be buying the AF version until / unless others can show it works well without vignetting, on FF. The Laowa 8-15 AF is still on the cards, so hopefully it won't be quite as wide FOV as this 7 Artisans. Over to you, Phil, if you are getting one!

I bought the manual version of this lens for E mount recently for under AUD 400. It arrived with very faint distance and aperture markings on the lens, and without the advertised glow in the dark ability. I would have returned it except optically it seems quite good. However after experimenting with it underwater, I'm not convinced manual is worth the trouble (for underwater), partly because the zoom gear I cobbled up was a Nauticam N120 size, which meant the lens has to be removed first, to remove the camera from the housing. You also have to recalibrate the focus scale, which requires a bit of careful maths, and the result is hard to read underwater. So an AF version is welcome... except for one potential problem: The manual version is 185 degrees diagonal. I could not exactly align the lens' EP with the optical centre for the Nauticam 140 dome, without vignetting caused by the dome itself, and that's with the shade removed. So I couldn't improve on an approx 30mm diameter circle centre sharpness at f11, and that's with a small amount of the vignetting. A longer extension to remove the vignetting reduced the sharp centre circle to just under 24mm, which is not great. So be prepared to crop if the AF version is also 185 degrees...

Since its been covered extensively in the links above and various threads, no need to repeat the process description. Probably quickest to spell out the particular lens / camera / housing / dome combo you are interested in, and ask if anyone is using / can advise on how it goes. There are many possible 'off piste' (off port chart) rigs, some of which work very well... and some which don't!

It is not a full hemisphere. The optical centre for the 140 is approx 7mm behind the mounting flange. I understand the only full hemisphere ports you can buy are custom jobs.

Not sure if your interest in the (presumably Nauticam) 230 dome was for the 16-25, but I found that lens works well even with the small 140 dome (radius 70mm), and not much further improvement with the 180 dome (radius 110mm). I used 25 adapter + 35 ext with the 140. Central area of sharpness when viewed at 100% was between 24 and 36mm diameter at f11. So if you are OK with f11 and this FOV range, it's a good compact rig. The Nauticam zoom ring for the 24-50 fits this lens, since they are made as a complementary pair. I'm not aware of a version "II" for this lens, so if it exists, disregard this post.

I reckon it's worth your trying to pick up a used old-style 20mm N120 extension. There are now at least 2 different styles for the N120 extensions, with the latest one super expensive as Chris says. But you should be able to buy the older one for $100-150 used. Look in the classifieds or place a WTB ad. Also, be warned: you are about to go down the rabbit hole of Nauticam accessories! I have acquired a massive collection over the years and can now at least test almost any lens combo. Re the compact port base stuff: yes it's old school flat port combos (I have some). I used to use it for different macro lenses, before I changed to domes for those. I don't think they ever made a screw thread dome to suit. Most likely they discontinued the screw thread experiment because threads can get very difficult to dismantle unless you carefully maintain them. Pre-digital Aquatica ports had the same issue - you needed a pair of strap wrenches in your kit!

I only happened on this topic out of boredom! I had a Nikon F90X and Subal housing, in prehistoric times. Both long gone, BUT.... I kept the viewfinder as pictured above! It screws into the camera eyepiece. I think I kept it because I got such a lousy price for the housing. Perhaps it's even my housing you have. Can't be many of them about in Oz. So, given that you seem to be in Australia I could probably be persuaded to sell it, so message me with an offer by all means. Btw, the housing performed quite well. The main problem was forgetting to nip up the locking screws with the supplied wrench, as I used to store it with the screws slackened off. I suffered one flood as a result, plus a couple of near misses.

Then I suggest you also go for it underwater. I'm the opposite - I prefer A7CR over A7RV for topside and underwater. I ran them side by side in Nauticam housings for a couple of years, and ended up selling the housing for the A7RV. Body + housing is 1.1kg heavier.

OK, thanks. Look forward to your AF update on the Tamron in due course. Regarding sharpness right across the frame with the Sony 100, I can't give you a clear answer, even though I went back to the original uncropped raws just now. My priority was the AF, and I assumed the sharpness question would fall into place. But because the AF target jumped away from what I intended, my sharpness reference point (always an eye, if there is one) is no longer accurate. So I have to look for what appears to be the sharpest point in the image and compare that with the far corners. And even then, perhaps the AF had not been properly acquired, so there may be no useful comparison. Best I can say at the moment is 'OK' into the corners (i.e. better than a flat port), but overall sharpness doesn't jump out like it does with the Sony 50 and 140 dome. I hope that changes if I get the AF sorted! At least I got some keepers, which is more than I can say I got with the 90 macro and MFO-1. I have just acquired a Nauticam 37122 4" WA port (as per Alex Mustard 'curved port' video quoted on another thread). I struggled a bit developing specs for it (Nauticam didn't bother to answer my query about the radius), but have firmed up on an estimate of 110mm outside dome radius, which makes sense as it would be the same as the 180 dome and possibly the 8.5" dome. But applying this radius to the port length suggests that Alex using a 16mm extension with that port and 50 macro means it is still quite a long way mis-aligned (my estimates suggest 45mm extension for the 50 macro with this port). Although he also said a longer extension was better for optimal sharpness, without saying how long! Anyway I have ordered 30 and 40 extensions which I think should cover the 50, 100 and also part of the 20-70 range (from about 40-70), using the 37122. OK, the 20-70 isn't macro, but it does a remarkable job with AF and close-up, so is good for moving fish. I will test everything AF with the 100 before giving up, as the combo would suit me perfectly if I can get it to perform.

Isaac, Just to confirm your thoughts on the Tamron 90 macro with your dome: have you noticed any negative results with AF, in particular AFC? And is it the latest version with VXD focus motor? I'm determined to keep testing the Sony 100 with a dome and AFC, but if I can't get it to perform as well (or better) than the Sony 50 macro with dome, passing the Sony 100 to my wife for spiders and getting a Tamron for underwater might be an option. Thanks

Small point which probably no-one will agree with: The PZ 10-20 is a great lens. If you move from Sony APS-C to FF as I did, there's nothing as compact as the 10-20 available in FF. I'm regretting selling my 10-20 instead of keeping it for use in crop mode with my A7CR (or even disable crop and get a bit more FOV out of it; e.g. square format). I found the button zooming a bit clunky though, and would probably go for the zoom gear instead.

Well, best to try it and see what you think. My estimates suggest using the 35.5mm adapter with 140 dome and 50 macro would put the dome approx 11mm too far forward. You will likely lose a little close-up range. I have both adapters. I never tested this combo with the 35.5mm. The 25mm one was hideously expensive when i bought it, but seems to have come down significantly in price (unique for Nauticam!)

I'm not intimately familiar with this dome, but how can you say that? If this dome is a portion of a larger dome, its optical centre will be well behind the port's mounting flange, and therefore (depending on the lens and its position in the housing) should be capable of aligning with the EP of at least some lenses, subject to adjustment with an extension ring if applicable. Regarding mis-alignment of WA rectilinear lenses' EPs with dome optical centres: the greater the mis-alignment, the smaller the central area of sharpness in the frame (some portion of the centre will always be sharp, regardless of alignment).

Just on the question of sRGB vs Adobe RGB, if you were ordering a photobook (eg. from Mixbook), would you (re)process the selected photos as sRGB, given that Mixbook recommends sRGB? Or would you leave them as Adobe RGB? And I'd appreciate any recommendations on photobooks anyone cares to make... Thanks

Yes I was unable to get a decent estimate of EP position for the Sony 90. I had 48mm from flange mount at infinity, and less than 20mm at 0.5m, where it became difficult to see and appeared to recede into the camera at closest focus. I used EP estimate of 28mm for my dive test rig, which gave no keepers with lots of mis-focusing and soft images. I recommend a flat port with this one.

No, hugely better with the Sony 50 macro. With a flat port you can barely get a 12mm D circle in the middle of the frame sharp. With a dome (in my case the 140 fisheye) everything that's in focus is sharp, across the entire frame, as Mustard and co say.. That big better appeals to me, but I understand many wouldn't care / feel the need to add attachments. Just wish I could get it happening (with decent AF) for the 100 macro. At the moment, the 'dog' of a 50 focuses more reliably than the 100 behind a dome, in my tests! Something to remember when calculating EP position for dome alignment: do it at (say) 30-40cm focused distance, since that is a reasonable compromise for where the virtual image will be. No point using infinity...

Sorry, I meant radius!!! 140 D has 69-70 R and 180 D has 110 R. I am estimating EP by looking from the front and marking off the apparent position on the outside of the lens, then measuring this distance back to the flange. I think Subal make some large radius / small diameter domes. Nauticam makes or used to make the same kind of dome for a particular 35mm lens, in N100 size. But it costs c. AUD $800 plus would need an extension which I don't have, at another $800 or so. So unless I can get the 100 macro working with the 180 dome, I can't justify buying the more compact large radius dome, since I don't need it for the 50 macro.

So the Zen WA-100 port is only for Olympus housings (different from the fisheye port which has a smaller diameter)?

Thanks. Another problem with the Sony 90 is the EP moves a lot; in fact much closer to the camera when focusing close, so it ends up very far back. This is not the case with the Sony 100 - the EP only moves a little as you focus close in. I estimated it at 84mm from the lens flange mount. But with a small diameter port (Nauticam 140 / 70mm diameter) the best I can get is 17mm mis-alignment (OC forward of EP). For my one dive test so far, I used a total of 75mm extension with Nauticam 180 port (110 D). Theoretically I needed another 6mm. But as I mentioned, still some mis-focus problems using AFC and tracking. If I can't use tracking, I'll stick to a flat port for this lens, but I may test some more / hoping some one else has got it humming. My goal was to emulate the sharpness right across the frame I can get with the 50 macro and 140 dome.

This is a great question, but difficult to answer except by saying 'do the best you can' based on what extensions you have available. In practical terms I aim for <10mm misalignment for a typical WA rectlinear lens, and preferably c. 5mm. Something new to me in his clip was his method of checking alignment (of OC and CC) by viewing the reflection of your eye in the dome at an angle (on land) and seeing how close it is to the apparent position of the aperture diaphragm. Anyone tried this? I will when I get around to it. One point he made in his flat ports clip which at this stage I can't endorse is his assertion that domes work well with longer macro lenses. I asked him about this but he hasn't replied. I have tried to get the Sony 90 and 100 macros working with a correctly aligned dome, but I run into mis-focusing issues (with AFC). There is also the problem that due to the size of these lenses and position of their EPs (CC) you need a large radius dome (c. 100mm or better) to get within a bull's roar of alignment. But large radius domes are typically only available with large diameters (eg. Nauticam 180), so their bulk gets in the way for macro. I would love to be proved wrong on this, and hear from someone who is successfully using a dome with either of these lenses! (And details of their rig).

Can you see if it's coated (anti-reflective)? May show as a tint on the glass.

Thanks for pointing this out. Excellent clip, as is his Part 2 on domes.

The awful Nikonos connector system (and cords generally) vs modern (wet) fibre optic systems...

The Laowa 10 is a poor performer behind the 140 dome, assuming we are talking sharpness across the frame, and uncropped images. I use a simple 3 point system to estimate sharpness across the frame. The centre is always sharp (assuming the lens can be properly focused) regardless of dome alignment or diameter. The question to be asked is: 'how big is that central sharp section?' not 'how sharp are the corners?' So I examine the centre at 100% and estimate the maximum diameter of the central sharp section. Score: 1= 12mm diameter, 2=24mm and 3=36mm. The figures are obviously approximate, but the fall-off in sharpness is actually quite easy to judge, assuming there are parts of the subject that should be in focus across the frame. I had high hopes for my Laowa 10, but its best score was 1 at f/11, using the 140 and total of 45mm extension, which gives a theoretical misalignment of -5mm (a minus indicates too much extension by that amount). The dome shade also vignetted moderately and would need to be removed. Now 12mm sharpness could be OK in some circumstances, but it's marginal. The 180 dome can't be used (vignettes too much), so I repeated the tests with my 8.5" dome. Best score was between 2 and 3 at f/11 with a total of 55mm extension and a theoretical misalignment of 4mm (meaning I needed another 4mm). But that's after removing the shade, and the port itself still vignetted a little. So I sold the lens. It is unusable for my purposes, but may suit others. I think the reason for its poor performance is its flat image plane (it is marketed as 'zero distortion' like some other Laowa WA lenses). Frankly I will avoid these for underwater use from now on. I second the comments on the Canon 8-15 with the 140. It works fine. But I long for the day when there is a useable E mount fisheye option! With AF of course... The 50 works very well behind the 140. Corners go from 1 at f/18 with a flat port, to 3+ (basically the entire frame) at f/8 with the 140. If you try to use the 90 or 100 with the 140, misalignment will be bad, due to the physical size of the lens and the location of the EP being far behind the front of the lens. Anyway I couldn't get the 90 to work, even with a larger radius 6" WA dome. Results were awful due to misfocusing. I think the problem here is that the EP is way back, and moves considerably as you focus closer. The 100 works a bit better (and the EP hardly moves), but best alignment with the 140 is theoretical -17, with total 80mm extension. It focused in water in a tub, but I didn't dive test it; opting instead to dive it with the 180 dome. There was quite a lot of misfocusing using AFC with tracking (my preference); plus a 180 dome is a bit clumsy for macro, so I won't pursue this option. Out of curiosity, I may still test it with the 140, despite the misalignment; and perhaps AFS is worth a shot. Other WA lenses (FF) I have tested with the 140 and work well (sharpness 2-3 at f/11) are the Sigma 17 and Sony 16-25. There are a variety of APS-C lenses which also work very well with the 140.