Adventurer

My fault not beeing a native speaker. @Barmaglot was right and by now I have both TC on my desk. Sadly I was put onto the wrong track by @DreiFish answer. There is black edges in the frame when just using a 1.4x TC. I could have remembered or computed it myself, though.

I guess that is just the VAT (Value Added Tax) in Europe I suppose. In Europe advertising the net price without VAT is illegal. In the USA it is normal to advertise prices without VAT. Also noteworthy: If you import directly from the US, you will be requested to pay customs (small ammount around 5%). + on top of both IMPORT TAX (which basically is the VAT). I have been there and had to learn it the hard way.

CANON R5 Mark II UNDERWATER HOUSING CHOICES Ikelite also somehow made an R5 Mark II Housing ready and takes pre-orders here: https://www.ikelite.com/products/underwater-housing-for-canon-eos-r5-mark-ii-mirrorless-camera they also have a video out, with MARELUX shows their Canon R5 Mark II Housing here: https://www.marelux.co/products/mx-r5ii-housing-for-canon-eos-r5ii-mirrorless-digital-camera And in Europe Hydronalin already lists it for pre-orders: https://www.hydronalin.eu/a-21106 INON has also confirmed that they will have an X-2 for Canon R5 Mark II Did not find this with INON yet, but with Hydronalin: https://www.hydronalin.eu/a-696525 Plenty of choices and price points for this camera underwater 😉 Not sure, if I want to upgrade from R6 Mark II - haha,.. but maybe others in the market find this helpful.

There is update and discussion in the above linked thread about that lens. I now own one. But it will take some time to hit the water with it. There has also been discussion about 10mm and 14mm lenses being very difficult to shoot because of the pincushion distortion. Basically anything below 20mm focal length is prone to dropping edges (even if very sharp and correctly positioned). So why do I like the 16mm so much and was impressed? One of the factors may be that the onboard Canon in-camera lens correction will render this lens FOV (Field of View) close to a 20mm lens without the dramatic pincushion effect.

Dreifish, could you tell us which HSS flash trigger / converter was used ? I recently learned that the implementation of HSS can substantially vary depending on the trigger+flash brand used. On some triggers+strobes the flash output and frequency stays the same and therefore decreases with faster shutter speeds. With uw-technics and Apollo III 2.0 you will have the option to adjust HSS strobe output on the strobe. You can substantially see a difference once you use the power dial. Here it seems the frequency is dynamically negotiated by the converter and camera. With the Backscatter HF-1 strobe their manual will reveal that this device has JUST ONE HSS OUTPUT LEVEL. This might also apply to the HSS implementation of the MF-2 and explain Phil's experience with it. Somebody told me on Retras the output is auto-determined by the cam+trigger. The manual turtle triggers will do HSS, I was told, but the frequency and output level of it seems static. It's recommended to review that more precisely. It raises an interesting question: which strobe is the most powerful HSS strobe in the market ?

that shot is terrific @DreiFish ! Kudos. it utilizes the pincushion distortion of the lens very well and gives the image a lot of depth. nice and inspirational example how to “think different” when bringing that focal length to the water.

I wanted to report back from the field with a huge portion of disappointment and a question that I took home with me. As you saw above I had spend a lot of effort and time to get the highest IQ result out of that 14mm Rokinon / Samyang AF for Canon. And as you can read above the IQ part was a success and inspired our very own @DreiFish to run an extensive tub test on the majority of these Canon lenses while I was gone. Thank you again for this, Dreifish! So what‘s my sad feeling ? Well,.. it‘s a general war issue I start to have with rectilinear lenses, once these go wider than approx 20mm underwater - and yes it‘s the corners which are a huge dissapointment. However the corner sharpness is not an issue, it‘s more the perspective -> plunging lines that always look like they are falling out of the image. I start to have huge difficulty when using 15mm or 14mm and cannot imagine how people happily utilize the Laowa 10mm. @Phil Rudin once said, that it is a difficult lens to shoot and I can feel him now. If you do not utilize the leveler in your camera and keep it straight the image instantly starts to look unpleasant to me. The corners will heavily try to fall away from the subject once you tilt the camera a little bit up or down. They are still dent sharp but they will start to look like Warp9 in Star Trek. If you use a 14mm rectilinear lens in landscape photography this is usually not an issue as you will prudently try to keep things level or use a tripod to prevent that perspective distortion. Having said rectlinear lenses do not fit my main shooting style in photo underwater; and maybe also not yours without you knowing it yet. As I constantly try to include the water column above me for negative space in my shots I keep tilting the housing towards the surface for nice compositions. If I do not shoot directly upwards or sidewards in a 90 degree angle towards the surface or 90 degree downwards the image usually starts to look very odd. Contrary to rectilinear lenses the fisheye behind a dome has a much more pleasing effect underwater which is less prone to tilting the cam in non-90-degree steps. Therefore the 14mm will probably just be special task split shot and close to the surface lens. I will stay with the fisheye for the average reef shot dive and wrecks and prefer the more dramatic compositions there. What do you guys think ? And what’s your take on uw video where the rectilinear lenses (especially zooms) still might have their place.

I would like some others to think / verify with me, if the teleconverter needs to be incorporated into the entrance pupil dome calculation. I think yes. So you will get totally different P-I values and flange distances. I think contrary to the canon EF-RF converter, these have to be taken into account. Or does the TC effect and the new flange distance cancel each other out? I also would point out, that there might a theoretical error for the Canon EF 8-15 when pulling it from optical bench. The default values there are @ 8mm zoom setting. If not used with a teleconverter this is the circular fisheye setting and not the diagonal fisheye setting of the lens. Hence the one that most of the users will rarely shoot, because they do not like a black circled image too often. If you play with the zoom slider on optical bench you get both values. It will show you 1,63 mm you difference offset for the minimum dome size required. A minimum dome diameter of just 7,6 cm should therefore be sufficient. But beware! The theoretical optimal extension on MARELUX for their small dome would be 8,34 cm. MARELUX is recommending 30mm only. .. I guess beyond this point vignetting kicks in and it's the usual compromise. However it's worthwile to try a 40mm ring or more to improve IQ if you own it or can borrow it.

@DreiFish you are such a darling! Many thanks for putting the time + brain + energy in this. I have one more question: Will a 1.4x TC show some black vignetting on the Canon 8-15 Fisheye @ 8mm ? Maybe somebody owning a canon fullframe body with the above + EF-RF adapter, can report back on this. 💙 I am thinking about simply traveling with two teleconverters in the future and selling my Sigma 15mm Fisheye Lens to get a used Canon FE Zoom.

Has anyone pondered with the idea or even tried to utilize the new RF 1.4x or 2.0x white teleconverters from Canon? I am just asking myself it is possible to construct the gear as follows: Cam Body -> RF1.4x Telecon -> RF-EF Converter -> Canon 8-15mm Fisheye F4 L lens ..might of course also work with RF2.0x telecon. I own the old EF Canon TC 2.0x and the only problem used to be the protruded inner rubber lens. If it‘s similar size it might be eaten up by the RF-EF converter. 😎 I wonder if there would be other limitations preventing to go this path? Alternatively there are two new TCs from Viltrox and Sigma which could be useful, instead of the Kenko.

hi Dreifish, I recommend to give this another try with a dome that is small and not (almost) a full hemisphere. This will compensate for the negative alignment of that lens inside your housing. The minimum focusing distance of that lens makes it surprisingly flexible. In fact I found it capable to obliterate the need for the fish portrait end on RF14-35 and RF15-30 @35mm/30mm with it‘s weird semi-macro close focus behaviour. Maybe you get an affordable INON Dome Port II and try to path it in with an INON/Nauticam adapter or a similar custom made dome. According to my measurements and calculation the INON dome can compensate for something around 33.26mm negative extension ring. Also you can remove the dome shade on that one if required.

My apologies, but you are testing and viewing the world through an Nauticam only housing perspective, and maybe you could note more often that there are also other brands where things work (different) and which you have not tested yet. On INON housings and domes that lens works excellent and also with a Marelux housing + my custom dome you even need an very slim extension ring to make it work in optimum. It might also work excellent on Ikelite systems, which I have not seen in action. However I highly appreciate all the well documented and intensive testing, Dreifish, that you share here in the forums on various gear brands. Thank you for all the hard work on gear testing and being so resourceful.

I would revise this statement into: the selection is " more mainstream compatible " for the expensive topside lenses and kit lenses on SONY. Looking back at my latest CANON experience with several non-L and simple STM lenses in place among five R-mount shooters, I must report back that the cheap RF 15-30 STM out-stomps the highly expensive Canon L versions (topside optimized lenses) in that range. So if you have not bought them yet, don't go for the RF 14-35mm F4L IS USM or the RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS USM. You can save money and go for the: RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM ! Also a total surprise and MUST BUY + USE lens is the cheap Canon RF 16 STM. That lens is ULTRA SHARP (even) behind (small) domes. One diver used it the whole trip and it turned out to be surpirisingly flexible. The fact that you can focus on small dome ports allows you to shoot fish portraits with it. It was really amazingly adaptive for a prime lens. There is this kind of semi-macro mode available on that lens, if you get really close. I am going to get one myself; even though I already own the overlapping Canon RF 15-30 STM. The no-brainer in the Canon RF System is still to get the 8-15mm fisheye zoom with EF converter and a 2.0x or 1.4x Teleconverter from Kenko. That will safe you a lot of travel weight and size and get you supreme image quality where other systems have to invest in optically corrected underwater glas. The Canon EF 8-15mm F4 alone is a must have lens in your underwater portfolio. If you do not need strong dual IS (lens+camera) the 2.0x TC will safe you from having to buy a wide angle zoom.

So in my particular case UWT did not have a Marelux profile available yet. So my UWT trigger just offers the RETRA profile. I will need to send it in for an update. Having said that, even such a provisionally solution did pretty well. Also I would like to add that TRT turtle does not do Canon Triggers for Mirrorless Cameras. They have ruled out Canon because of the high R&D effort. Maybe they change their mind someday. So all you can head to is UWtechnics and INON as Canon MILC owner, if you intend to explore fibre optic TTL triggers. Thank you for your extensive reply and thoughts on my report Phil. I am very much looking forward to the improved Manuals of MARELUX. I think their products are very capable but potential customers also need to learn about the full potential to unleash it.

Thanks @Phil Rudin for the clarification. I have rolled up and down the limited manual of Apollo III 2.0 and unfortunately does say much about M-HSS. This is all you will find: https://www.marelux.co/u_file/2407/file/01/ae0c5179f9.pdf Unfortunately it does not tell you anything about the requirements. 1.) So if you can shoot with a manual LED strobe trigger or not, OR if @Pavel Kolpakov UW-Technics converter is a requirement ? 2.) Also it does not refer to the settings required in the cameras strobe control menu. 3.) The manual does not tell you, if the camera may work this in Mechanical/Half-Electronic/Electronic Shutter However full electronic shutter is ruled out, by Canon R6 Mark II camera as it will not flash sync at all. Funny sidenote: If you connect a Canon SpeedLite HSS is a subset of eTTL (automatic intensity control). However even if you buy the UWtechnics TTL Trigger + Marelux Apollo III 2.0 you will be in a MANUAL HSS mode and direct the strobe intensity on the level switch of the Apollo Strobe. A lot of expert camera know-how and trial and error experimenting is required by the customer. In my case the following was used: 1.) Marelux R6 Mark II Housing 2.) UWtechnics TTL LED Trigger, dip-switch set to RETRA UWT profile 3.) 2 pc. Marelux Apollo III 2.0 strobes 4.) 2 pc. high-quality multi-core fibre optic cables * Lumilink 2.0 was owned but not used, to make this complicated system less prone to fails. Also there are said to be shutter speed limitations by Lumilink 2.0 and 1.0 which renders the M-HSS mode useless. I had occasional fails/blackouts on the system resulting in not-firing strobes and a black image. Sometimes this may have been wrong settings (strobe menu or still being in non-mechanical shutter mode) but they also might be due to the fact that the TTL-trigger-profile was still not for Apollo and had to utilize the RETRA profile.