dentrock

It was fine with the Nikonos 15 (same fov). I think the term cfwa was coined about then.

Yes. That's why I suggested it... To add to my comments, I suggest you go back to 1st principles and review loads of shark photos (your own and others) and work out which ones engage you (meaning which ones do you come back to / look at again and again). There is an awful lot of wide angle stuff published which is frankly, dull. Which do you want to emulate? Then figure what lens you would need to take your favourite shark photos, with the least amount of cropping. It occurs to me the 20-70 could be perfect for the Galapagos, since it would be good for the lizards, all the sharks, tortoises, most fish and so on. Potentially good on land too. A lightweight rig should also help. But each to their own. Well, yes, but then the alternative is no photos. But if you CAN get close in poor viz, a close-up photo could have way more impact than an attempt to 'get the whole animal in'. Think 'snout, eyes and teeth'! Nobody seems to mention this now, but I used to teach that you should try to limit subject distance to 1/5th of the viz... so 3m viz = 60 cm max distance... Of course, just another rule that can be broken, but still something to consider.

You don't need a very wide lens unless the sharks are large and/or very close. And of course you can get get head shots if your lens is too narrow for the whole animal. I have nice shots of Galapagos whalers from Lord Howe with a 60mm micro and flat port... these top out at about 1.5m but they can come close. Of course I would not recommend this setup, so I suggest the Sony 20-70 with 180 dome would be a good choice for small to medium size sharks, plus let you get good fish shots and even some close-ups as well. For pure shark photos I would use my 16-25 with either 140 or 180 dome. No wider unless they are big and close perhaps.

I don't think gobies on the sand are particularly difficult targets. I shoot a lot of Nesogobius gobies in my local patch, generally in low viz and dim conditions (under a jetty). I have relatively poor vision yet I can shoot them with my Nauticam, A7CR and std VF (the one that comes with the housing). Typically they are 25-40mm long. The tricky bit is maintaining focus on the eye, as it's a fairly small target. I use tracking, AFC, medium spot. I get between 50-75% success rate with Sony 100 (better with Sony 50). Success depends on how steady I am on the day! I bought a 45 degree VF and used it for a while. It certainly helped with bottom dwelling stuff but was a pain for occasional mid-water stuff and impossible for verticals. It has sat in my cupboard now for a couple of years!

Yes, 1 to 2 would be good, since it's easy to 'take turns on who is first'. Kri is that. I will avoid 1 to 4 in future. FYI I didn't do 2 or 3 P to P resorts because I decided I hate packing and unpacking mid way through a trip! I get settled in to a room then like to focus just on the photos!

On that trip last year I ended up only doing Lembeh / Murex resort. The diving pretty much met my expectations, although the room was a bit ordinary. Food was incredible though. Guides were mostly very good, but I'm not keen on queuing up to take a photo, and some divers were really good at messing up the viz. I don't know if I would return, but I doubt if other operations are any better. Have been some renovations this year. Not sure if they improved the rooms though. Also just returned from Siladen Resort (in the Manado / Bangka area). Resort is lovely and I really like the traditional style rooms with outside bathroom etc. Diving however focuses on Bunaken wall dives. Biodiversity is very low on those, so unless you are happy with turtles and drift dives, a little wall diving is more than enough. There is almost no large fish, and even the range of small critters is very restricted. Muck dives at Manado were much better / more critters / more diversity, but I had to work hard to convince the dive operator to go there. I won't return, not because of the resort, but because of the dull diving. I have just booked a return trip to Kri Eco resort (Raja Ampat) in July 2027, which has the best house reef I know of. And cute over water traditional cottages!

I estimated an EP of 45 at 1:4 focus for the Sony 50 macro. I haven't used the 180 with it because it's too clumsy for me for close-ups, but an extension of approx 40mm (or just the 35 adapter) should get you close with this lens and that port. The OC for the port on its own is approx 25mm behind the mounting flange.

No problem since extension is only 25mm. 140 dome radius is 70mm approx. 4" WA dome and 180 dome both 110mm radius (I think!). Don't know about 4.33" fisheye dome, but should be OK. Suggest align lens with EP estimated at about 30cm focus distance, since the entire focal range is greatly compressed given that the lens will be focusing on the virtual image which is between approx dome itself and 3x radius from dome at infinity.

It also has exceptional IQ across the full frame with a dome, even up to f5.6. But you lose working distance at optimal dome alignment, just a couple of cm at 1:1. Depends on the dome radius. Review Alex Mustard's curved port clip. As far as I can tell, the little port he describes has a radius of approx 110 mm (hard to measure). Optimal alignment with this port appears to be 40mm ext, but working distance is zero at 1:1. However, as he says, he gets good results with 16 mm ext, which should give 24mm WD. With this port I use 30mm ext. 140 dome with 25 adapter is also fine. Best application is about 1:2 on.

I can get fast moving pelagics with Sony 50mm and a dome, as well as the usual macro stuff. Try it in a shop and/or buy used and sell it if you don't like it.

Focus behavior of zeiss 50 on FF was a bit odd. Covers 1:1 square format OK (= approx 44 mpix of 61 mpix sensor). Sony 50 is a better solution for FF.

On my 6500 I called it my 'gentleman's lens'. Great result when it decided to focus! Way faster on 6400. 90mm perhaps a tad faster on 6500, but too long for routine photos. Need good viz and a reason to use it.

60mm is 60mm on FF and 90 equiv on apsc, or 120 on M43, or....!

Ask them where the optical centre of the dome is then (in relation to the port mounting flange).

Sure, perhaps no adapters if you have a N100 housing. But it remains to be seen what, if any, extensions are required. Plus the Nauticam range of extensions for N100 (and N85) is miserable cf N120 extensions. Let's hope they increase their selection.

It's a beautiful lens on a later Sony body such as the 6400. AF a bit slow on earlier bodies. Make sure you have the upgraded firmware - FOC but has to be done by Zeiss. It's the only APS-C lens I kept when I changed to FF - couldn't bear to sell it!

Someone needs to measure / estimate the lens EP (distance to mounting flange) then we will all have a base to work from.

OK I've checked out the Sigma's specs and rewatched Christoper Frost's reviews. Main points: Frost says it does 1:2 mag between 28 and 85mm which is handy. Optics look quite good. Lens is very narrow - zoom ring is said to be 70.4mm D in Sigma specs. Also zoom ring is at the back (closest to camera) which is also handy and will easy fit N100 system. Can't imagine Nauticam could be bothered to offer a zoom ring since it's clearly not interested in supporting non-mainstream stuff, so closest I have is the ring I use for 16-25 (actually 24-50 ring). Diameter of that lens is 74.8 so zoom gear could be padded out to work with Sigma. Would I buy it? Definite 'yes' if I didn't already own the Sony 70-200 macro (which takes a TC if that's your thing)... This one is a bit big for my liking for UW, and anyway, it doesn't go to 20mm. Don't need both, but...!

Thanks, Phil. I will have to check dimensions and see if it could fit in the N100 ports system. Your Marelux prices on zoom gears are a steal compared to Nauticam!

That's interesting about the Sigma 20-200 offering 1:2 mag over that range. I had been thinking about that lens for 'one lens' land travels, but had ruled it out for UW. Care to share your extension used with the 180, and if possible, a photo of your zoom gear so I can figure whether I can cobble up something out of Nauticam bits?

I would add the Sigma 24 and Sigma 17, but frankly, the Sony 16-25 makes these redundant. However if you fancy a prime, those Sigmas are great. Another goody is the Zeiss Batis 40mm CF with a suitable dome, but that is surely a niche lens. I bought and sold the Laowa 10mm, because I couldn't get decent corners with either the Nauticam 140 or 8.5" domes, and wasn't prepared to go larger. So that one is not recommended for casual users who care about IQ.

Nice review - thanks! Did the lens vignette at 14mm (FF) with the dome shade? Or only when you go circular?

Re tests with 16-25 which I own: With 180 dome, A7CR / A7RV body, 25mm adapter, 50mm ext - alignment is theoretically perfect (0mm misalignment of OC at EP). IQ score at 16 is corners 2 at f8, 2-3 at f11. At 25, score is almost 3 at f11. I have explained my scoring system in previous posts, but for a quick recap, I look at the area of central sharpness at 100%, to see where it falls off (stuff that should be in focus is in sharp focus - quite easy to judge). 2 = a circle of 24mm diameter (touches mid long sides of 3x2 FF frame), 3 = 36mm (touches mid short sides of frame). With 140 dome, 25mm adapter, 35mm ext - alignment is -3mm (i.e. 3mm too long). Score is identical to the above (surprised me). As a variation you could reduce ext to 30mm with alignment of 3 (needs 3mm more). You could also use 35mm adapter + 20mm ext. Re Nauticam port charts, I emailed them and spoke to their agent about including this lens - no joy there (unsurprising given their lack of customer support). NB - you will need a zoom gear. Not available from Nauticam but fortunately the gear for 24-50 fits well (these two lenses are a matching pair from Sony). Final point: given you have 20-70 on your list, I would buy this first - it may be that 20mm is wide enough for you. About 10 degrees difference to 16, and works well with 180 dome, plus giving you handy close-up ability. Unfortunately, 20-70 does not work well with 140 dome (radius of 70mm is too small to accommodate the lens extension of about 40mm at 70mm FOV, so you cannot achieve decent optical alignment). However, 140 should be OK with new fisheye (fingers crossed)!

I agree with Phil that the Sony 16-25 is worth a look if you are OK with the shorter range, and cheaper too. Not only does it work nicely with the 180 dome, it works equally well with the 140 dome.

Based on my tests with the manual version, it needs a full hemisphere dome for proper alignment. You can order a custom one, but I don't know of any off the shelf full domes. The Sony fisheye seems a much better option.