DreiFish

I finally have the Marelux III in my hands, so I did some additional testing comparing them to the OneUW 160s. I also receive the diffusers for the OneUW 160s So far, I'm quite impressed with the build quality and light output/recycling times, though the controls aren't as ergonomic as the Retras. Still... I think I prefer the manual dials to OneUW's electronic paddles, which always confuse me. Some observations: ONE UW color temperature is ~5400k without diffusers and ~4900k with diffusers. Diffusers lose about 1 stop of light power (all these measurements are in the center -- I haven't look at beam pattern and edge falloff yet Marelux III color temperature is ~6500k without diffusers and ~5800k with diffusers. Diffusers lose between 2/3 and 1 stop of light power in the center. Power wise (again, in the center), the Marelux III is marginally brighter than the ONE UW. Maybe 1/3 of a stop. The One UW as observed above is about 1 stop brighter than the Retra Pro. (Below, ONE UW 160 histogram on the left, Marelux III on the right. Both at full power without diffusers.) One UW is heavy. With the ball mount and neoprene cover, it weighs in at 1709g compared to 1373g for the Marelux III Marelux III recycles much faster. ONEUW 160 is able to maintain 3 fps shooting only at -5 stops from full power. Marelux III, when put in its MTL mode, appears to automatically dial down power by about 2 stops (if at full), but can maintain 3 fps shooting already at this power setting. Overall, I like the Marelux III so far. I think they would make great strobes for shooting wide angle action like sharks or other fast-moving subjects where you want to shoot in continuous drive mode. They're not ideal for reef scenic shots in blue water though because of the higher color temperature. Haven't compared the beam coverage yet, but I suspect the OneUW has more even light (at least without the diffuser) Caption

Hey Pavel, Yes, I have two different housings. Plan is not to swap the TTL converter from one house to another, but rather to buy 2 of them, one for each housing. Re ONE UW 160, I have an email from Luca Carraro (ONEUW owner I presume) saying the TTL (and presumably HSS functionality) works primarily over electrical sync cable, but also works with optical sync with a special model of TRT trigger. Luca indicated it hadn't yet been profiled for UWT (whatever this means) I haven't tested it personally, so perhaps it works anyway with the standard UWT trigger. Email from Luca reproduced below:

Damn.. I guess there's no current option to adopt the RS13 for Canon cameras? It would require a donor lens of some sort I suppose?

This is taken with the WACP-1 (same characteristics as the WWL-1 or WWL-C). As you can see, you get some "fisheye" (barrel) distortion on the corners. Whether it matters for wreck shots depends on your composition. For comparison, this is the Canon 8-15 at 15mm, to see how extreme the fisheye effect can be inside a wreck. But it all depends on composition.

Welcome Mike! Still on the fence about the FCP-1, but the WACP-1 definitely deserved a new home where it can see a bit more use. In the meantime, I've downgraded to the WWL-C + Canon 24-50 lens. Maybe a downgrade in terms of image quality, but d definitely not a downgrade in terms of size and weight 😄

The issue is that the only mid-range RF lens that works with the WACP-C line is the 24-50 F4.5-5.6... which is a cheap kit lens at the end of the day. Image quality is alright, but as said, I didn't think it was an improvement over the EF 28-70.

Hi Brandon, Sounds like we've had somewhat different experiences. I own all 4 of the lenses and have used the EF 28-70 F3.5-4.5 and RF 24-50 and 14-35 with the WACP-1 on an R5C. I also briefly tried the 28-80, but I think the 28-70 is sharper for sure. I also think the EF 28-70, old as it is, is at least as sharp as the new RF 24-50 and suffers from less distortion. It is noisy to focus, but I didn't find the focus speed to be an issue with reef scenic wide-angle shots. I also used the 28-70 + WACP-1 on a couple of shark dives and didn't have shots out of focus or slow focusing issues. But perhaps my expectations are just lower. The RF 14-35 is clearly the best of the lot, both in terms of image quality and autofocus, but you're stuck using a very limited zoom range unless you pair it up with the behemoth WACP-2. What camera body were you using them with? And.. what did you end up using instead, if they didn't live up to your expectations?

Looks like Canon RF has the widest versatility for use with the FCP. 4 different lenses can be used: If Nauticam's converted FOV numbers are to be trusted, then the FCP converts the 24-50 becomes Fisheye to 23mm rectilinear equivalent 28-80 becomes Fisheye to 40mm rectilinear equivalent 28-70 becomes Fisheye to 36mm rectilinear equivalent 14-35 becomes Circular Fisheye + Fisheye to 12mm rectilinear equivalent. The 28-80 lens seems particularly interesting if this is true.. that's the kind of range and flexiblity for wide angle that just isn't possible with any other setup.

Hi Chris, As said, based on my experience with the Canon 14-35 F4, which works great with the WACP-1 between 28-35mm (even though not listed on Nauticam's official port chart), I'd expect this 24-50 to also work with both the WACP-1 and the FCP. This is the Canon 14-35 F4 with the WACP-1 at 24mm F4.0 (yes, wider than the advertised minimum -- and the lower and upper lens hood show a little bit as a result. But they go away at 26mm. Andrei

Thanks Chris.. so, probably not really an option for underwater use. Too bad.

The 38.5cm MFD is measured from the sensor. Given the lens itself is 16cm long, we're really only talking a MFD ~20cm in front of the front element. So.. it might work fine in a 230mm dome? Dunno. Anyway, still not clear that it has any advantage over more traditional 15mm F2.8 or F4 fisheye lenses/fisheye zoom lenses underwater.

Actually, it extends at 24mm, and retracts at 50mm according to this youtube video. So it should be possible to use behind a WACP-1 at least without vignetting. The same video claims the image quality is quite stellar Regarding the 67mm filter thread size, the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 has a 77mm filter size, and that lens works with both the WACP-1 (personally tested) and the FCP according to the port charts. So it's promising. It should work with at least the WACP-1 and FCP, and perhaps also with the WACP-C. If it does.. well, it would be quite a goldilocks lens for Nauticam's smaller water contact optics. Exciting times in Sony land.

It looks like Alex did answer my original question -- somewhat -- in the comments to this YouTube video ( @Alex_Mustard 7 days ago As I said in the video - because I was in Raja Ampat I didn't do detailed tests on image quality. I just got on with shooting great images with the lens. But my feeling is that the FCP is at the very least matching, and I felt out performing the image quality of a fisheye and dome. I have always been disappointed with the 8-15mm on teleconverter - even though I got the expensive gear to be able to use it. It just seems a wasteful use of the great sensors on FF mirrorless cameras. Fine at 20MP, wasteful at 45MP. Some people love the fisheye + TC solution, or don't care because they are focused only on Instagram, but I always see its limitations as soon as you look away from the central area of the frame. So I would say in image quality terms WACP1>FCP>fisheye with dome>fisheye+TC with dome, would be my solution. All work, all can get great shots, just with differing levels of image quality. And if I am going half way round the world to get a shot - and it will take the same effort to get it with any of those setups, I would always want the best setup on my camera. It is extra image quality without extra talent!

Strange.. I watched the same video and got a different viewpoint. From 10:50 onwards: " into your question about the image quality I would say that it's not as much of a wow image quality as the wacp1 I think if you go from shooting say a rectilinear behind a dome port to the wacp1 almost everyone I know who bought a WACP if you want is being like oh wow it's my favorite lens I love it I love the image quality um this [the FCP] it delivers on the image quality but not by as big a margin over a standard fisheye and I think that's partly because the standard fisheye behind a dome is generally very good and I think also that this is probably slightly less good than a wacp-1 um it's probably a little bit more similar in terms of image quality to a wacp-c or or that sort of thing so still you know better than a dome port but not by as big a margin as the very best of the the nauticam optics" To me what Alex is saying is that the FCP is better than a fisheye, but not by as wide a margin as the WACP-1 is better than a standard rectilinear lens behind a dome port. And that it's not quite as sharp as a WACP-1. But I'd like Alex to confirm if that's the case, because the two statements are confusing and contradictory to me. I own the WACP-1 and a Canon 8-15 with 140mm dome. I've always felt that the Canon 8-15 was sharper and more contrasty than the WACP-1 with the Canon 28-70F3.5-4.5 lens. So yeah, a more nuanced comparison is needed in my view. Not only for sharpness, but also for contrast and, importantly, flare handling.

Has anyone tried this lens underwater? Would it work with a normal dome port, say, like the Nauticam 140mm or 230mm dome port? Or do you need some sort of specialized dual-dome solution in order to get true 3d pictures/video? https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/rf5-2mm-f2-8-l-dual-fisheye?color=Black&type=New With the new Apple Vision Pro out, I'm kinda curious to try producing some 3d content for it.

@Alex_Mustard -- setting aside the zoom flexibility, how does the image quality (sharpness, contrast) with the FCP compare with the Canon 8-15mm? Better? Equal? Worse? How about flare resistance?

A bit outside your $1000 budget, but I am selling a pair of used Retra Pro strobes in the classified forum here. Also, I have (1) Supe D-Max that's never been in water for sale. ($500 for that one)

I am in the market for a new flash trigger. He needs to be able to support HSS and TTL functionality. The strobes will be used with includes the Retra Pro, Backscatter MF-2, ONE UW 160 and new Marelux Apollo 3 strobes. So basically, I’d like a model that can: (1) support TTL, HSS functionality over optical sync with all 4 of those strobes (last 3 being most important) (2) work with Canon R mirrorless cameras (3) Fit inside the Nauticam housing for the R5C and R6 Mark II (4) As a bonus, potentially work with the Nauticam S6 bulkhead for electrical sync for TTL/HSS with the ONE UW 160 strobes. My understanding from ONE UW is that the UW Technics flash trigger doesn’t work in HSS mode with their strobes over optical sync. Which I guess would leave the Turtle trigger as the only option that does all the above? Can anyone confirm if the Turtle trigger works with the Backscatter MF-2 or the new Marelux Apollo 3 strobes? Also, I’m confused by all the different models of the Turtle trigger. What’s the difference between the e-Turtle Smart, e-Turtle Smart Mobie and Smart 2?

Purchased in 2021. Both working great, with some cosmetic wear on the outside. https://www.backscatter.com/Retra-Flash-Pro-Underwater-Strobe $800 each or $1500 for the set. Also for sale: 2x Warm Wide Diffuser 2x Reduction Rings 2x Reflectors I'll throw in all the accessories if purchasing the 2 strobes together for $1500.

Phil, does the UWT work with the Marelux Apollo strobes in TTL/HSS/MTL? How about the Turtle trigger? I need to pick one for Canon R5/R6 Mark II.

Where to get one of those?

Hi Phil, Nothing so professional 🙂 I don't have a color meter on hand. I simply took a raw image of a 18% grey card and 90% white card with a macro lens at same settings/same distance from the flash. Brought the images into lightroom and used the white balance tool to white balance off the white card. So take the results with a grain of salt. They are probably not an absolute measurement of the color temperature. They're mostly useful in comparing the four strobes and contrasting with the manufacturer specifications.

Retra Pro (Full Power, with 100mm Macro) OneUW (Full Power, with 100mm Macro) Supe D-Pro (Full Power, with 100mm Macro) Ikelite DS230 (Full Power, with 100mm Macro)

So I've been looking for an upgrade from my current Retra Pro strobes (the original, not the Retra Pro X or Retra Pro Max). Main annoyance is that they're quite negative and I don't like dealing with 8x (or more) Eneloop AA batteries each time. I'd prefer a strobe with a built-in battery solution, ideally lithium ion, not NIMH. I got my hands on three strobes to compare against the Retra Pros and tested them in my garage to gauge color temperature, beam angle and recycling times, along with some of the intangibles like ergonomics, size of charger, ease of use. I'll post my results and comparative pictures below. But for now, here is the initial chart I've been compiling to start a discussion. Some interesting findings... I'd really like to get one of the new Marilux Apollo III strobes in to also compare next Initial reflections in no particular order: 1. Advertised color temperature (no diffusers) is way off. Especially for the Supe D-Pro, but surprisingly also for the OneUW 160. A bit dissapointing on that end. 2. Of the 4, I prefer the controls, ergonomics and build quality of the OneUW and Retra Pro the most. Supe D-Pro controls are a bit clunky and power ratings are weird -- why go from 100%-90%-80%-70%-50% power? Who is that useful to? 3. Ikelite DS230 is a bit disappointing in terms of power. Seems roughly equivalent to the Retra Pro (with maybe a slightly broader beam angle -- hard to measure). One-UW is 2/3 of a stop brighter than the Retra Pro and Ikelite DS230s, and a full stop brighter than the the Supe D-Pro. 4. While the Supe D-Pro initially seems like a bargain, there's enough compromises that to me it would be worth upgrading to the OneUW -- or the Retra, if you can stand dealing with the supercharges and 8 AA batteries per strobe.. 5. So far, OneUW or Retra seems the best for traditional wide angle (because they also allow for TTL & HSS), with the Ikelite DS230 being a decent choice also. 6. On paper, Marilux Apollo III looks like the best option for fast action pelagics where you need a combination of power, fast recycling time, and TTL, and color temperature is not so important. I look forward to getting my hands on one. 7. Neither the OneUW nor the Supe D-Pro triggered properly for me with fiber optic cables and the Nauticam LED flash trigger. Their optical sensors must be weaker than those on the Retra. Rather frustrating. I'm starting to think electrical sync cables are the way to go, especially if the strobe supports TTL/HSS over the cables.. Guess I'll probably end up with 2x OneUWs for wide angle and people photos and 2x Marilux Apollo III's for wide angle pelagics. Maybe I'll keep the Retra Pros for when travel weight is absolutely essential. (I have 2 backscatter MF-2s for macro. I'll probably add them to the test at some point).

Wetpixel refugee, currently based near Boca Raton, Florida.