Architeuthis

From the range of angles of view (AOV) available, it is no question that I prefer the fisheye/WACP option. As already said, my personal preference is similar to what Tim was writing: Macro +/- SMC-1(3) (Almost for sure I will acquire also the rumored Laowa 180mm AF 1.5x lens as a second macro option, when the UW performance is good) or, alternatively, the fisheye... The 20-70mm is a nice third option, when there are multiple dives possible, certainly no substitute for the fisheye. It is always good to have different lenses/perspectives for a slide show/image collection. It requires, however, an additional and bigger domeport plus substantial extension (170mm sphere section domeport for 20-70mm vs. 140mm hemisphere for Canon 8-15mm fisheye)... Amongst the fisheye setups (Canon 8-15mm w/o TC; Canon 8-15mm + 2x Sony TC; WACP-C/28-60mm), I clearly prefer the Canon 8-15mm + 2x Sony TC - it has the most versatile AOV range. I am still not at a final cinclusion regarding IQ, but according to my (very subjective) judgement, Canon 8-15mm + 2x Sony TC has very similar IQ compared to WACP-C/28-60mm (I look mostly at sharpness in the middle of the frame). The pure Canon 8-15mm gives maybe a little bit better IQ, but it can not much, it is maybe possible, but certainly hard to tell, which image was taken with TC and which w/o. Over time this lead me to prefer the Canon 8-15mm + 2x Sony TC setup: Just yesterday I returned from a 9-day diving holiday in Croatia and I always was using the Canon 8-15mm + 2x Sony TC (or, alternatively, the Sony 90mm macro +/- SMC1). The WACP-C remained untouched in the suitcase (and also the 20-70mm, but I rather would have taken the 20-70mm before the WACP-C, because of its excellent sharpness)... Wolfgang P.S.: you write that you plan to use the 20-70mm also for topside and you have already the Sigma 15mm (which domeport? can it also be used with the 20-70mm?). Certainly these two lenses are very good for the beginning and after a while you will know what is best for you...

I can only say about the Sony 20-70mm, that I use behind Zen DP170. It is very sharp, maybe it is the lens with the sharpest UW performance that I have. For me 20mm at the wide end is plenty of rectilinear WA and it is very useful for zooming in (I also have the Laowa 10mm, but used it so far only twice - I personally find rectilnear at such wide angle distracting). I use it mostly for fish portraits (and moderate WA), the focal length depends on how shy the creatures are, but I try to go to the minimum possible... When a wider angle than 20mm is needed, I use fisheye (Canon 8-15mm w/o and with Sony 2x TC; WACP-C/Sony 28-60mm), similar to what Tim was writing... Wolfgang

I have put now the 3D file(s) into the dropbox (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/dzjpn1s8wbfhbkyru8l4j/h?rlkey=u8ne953g3iymcyexmgczbmj9e&st=85dnwgtz&dl=0). I must admit that the current extension ring works, but it is not perfect: when I screw it to the Nauticam Zoomgear, I have to do it so that there remains a small gap (1-2mm) between the gearwheel and the extension ring, to make it a little bit longer to make the zoom function work smoothly (i.e. the gearwheel of the camera housing and the zoomgear fit exactly): Canon815_2xSony.stl Canon815-2xSony.stl is 2mm longer and should fit perfectly (maybe it needs a little bit of abrasion, but I still have to print it out and test it). I would print out this version, but I cannot guarantee: Canon815_2xSony&2mm.stl Wolfgang P.S.: I fix every extension ring with three headless Allen screws (M2) to the zoomgear and the ring cannot detach during using it UW (or by mechanical agitation during transport etc...). The tools for making the treads in the plastic can be acquired at every hardware store for little money and it is easy...

I have printed here until recently, it was always o.k., but it comes at a cost: https://i.materialise.com/de/Account/Login Now a good friend of my son has acquired a 3D printer and it costs practically nothing (I gave him a six-pack for the last printout and he said this is much too much). So better have someone in the neighborhood to print it out...😄

Hi jjimochi, I did not know that there is a difference between mark 4 and 5 of the metabones adapter. Also nobody else reported about it, it seems you are the first to find out... Here I have deposited the Nauticam zoomgear extensions for various adaptations of Canon 8-15mm and Tokina 10-17mm. Only the ones were "Sony" is in the name are for Nauticam Sony housing, the rest are for adapted Nauticam Olympus housing: https://www.dropbox.com/home/Zoomgears The extension for the 2x Sony TC/Canon 8-15 is currently not among them. I can put it there (from my server at home) on Monday, when I am back from diving (currently Sveta Marina/Croatia 😊). Alternatively you can take any for the Canon 8-15mm lens and elongate the ring with a simple program (I use "Tinkercad")... In this link Gudge (post from February 6 2024) shows an entire zoomgear for the adapted Canon 8-15mm, I think for Sony/Nauticam (w/o TC): https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/671-proven-3d-printed-parts-for-underwater-imaging/ Wolfgang

I have the 2x Kenko TC that you have linked (Teleplus HD 2x DGX). IQ with the Canon 8-15mm is clearly worse in comparison with Sony 2x TC. I one of the treads linked above, Massimo (now "guest") shows images obtained with the better Teleplus HD Pro 2x DGX and they look much better, very similar to the images with Sony 2x TC. See here for the currently available Kenko TCs: https://kenkoglobal.com/catalog/teleconverters/ Sony TC is more pricey, but shorter (=less extension) and can be used with Sony lenses as 100-400mm (Kenko works with Canon EF lenses, as Canon 8-15mm fisheye). The setup is correct... So far, I only used the 140mm dome which I find pretty small and handsome, so cannot say from own experience whether Zen 100mm also is o.k.. There are, however, multiple reports here in the treads that performance of Canon 8-15mm with Zen 100mm on FF is suboptimal (my wife used Tokina 10-17mm on MFT with the Zen 100mm and IQ is very good). I understood the postings this way that people use the Zen 100mm with FF only when they want to get very close in CFWA and the 100mm dome is a little bit smaller then (but now, since the EMWL is available, I guess many people switch to EMWL for such purpose, since this is clearly the smallest).. When the (standard) 35.5mm N100/N120 adapter is used, 30mm N120 additional extension is for the pure fisheye, without TCs. For the Sony 2x TC an additional 30mm extension is needed (60mm N120 extension in total; for the Kenko 2x TC 70mm extension are needed). You need a custom 3D printed Zoom gear (I believe one is available here under 3D parts) or a simple 3D printed extension ring, fixed by 3 Allen screws to the Nauticam zoomgear (I have the latter and it is for download under 3D parts)... Possibly the 30mm N100 extension could be reused. It needs to be mounted of course between A7R5 housing and N100/N120 adapter and the zoom gear need to be extended for the 30mm then... Wolfgang

Best solution when staying with Zuiko 8mm ... 👍 And when you counterbalance the gain from selling the N120 version, it will be little money in summary...

The advice from Cris is very good. Tokina 10-17mm or Canon 8-15mm. Same IQ compared to Zuiko 8mm, but much better versatility. It comes, however, at a cost (I believe it is worth every cent), maybe the price is comparable (the speedbooster is not cheap), but you can count together the current price of items by yourself... Another possibility is, that you do not need an extension as short as 17mm and, in practice, it could be somewhat longer. I was using e.g., the Zuiko 8mm with the 34.7mm N85/N120 adapter, as well as with a custom made 30mm N85/N120 adapter with the Nauticam 140mm domeport, with very good results (the extension recommended by Nauticam is 30mm). Theoretically there should be no difference between 140mm and 100mm domeports regarding extensions, since both are hemispheres (but there may be a difference in practice)... Wolfgang

A drawback is that it is manual focus only...

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/first-image-of-the-new-laowa-af-180mm-f4-5-1-5x-apo-and-12mm-f-2-8-zero-d/

nomfo4 is way sharper - it seems that mfo4 is not in focus... Anyway I am thankful for these interesting comparison shots...👍

Thanks for posting the images...👍👍👍 The difference is really small, according to my subjective judgement. When I look directly on the screen, the lower one looks a little bit more contrasty (could be easily changed with LR in postprocessing with one of the contrast sliders). When I download the images and magnify them on my screen, the upper one shows a little bit more detail... Which lens was used (camera was OM-1?)? => Now I would like to have someone post similar comparisons with the Sony 90mm macro and FF... Wolfgang

I have a question regarding the EMWL relay unit: when one does not mount this acessory "relay" unit and just uses the "focusing" unit and the "objective lens", what kind of inversion does the image in the EVF show: (i) upside down, (ii) mirror image or both (i)&(ii)? Thanks, Wolfgang

Yes, please show all the images...

When travel weight is the primary concern, also WWL-1B with flatport and 28-60mm lens may be an option, probably the lightest combo for Sony FF (For Nikon Z a standard zoom lens exists, that allows to use the lighter WWL-C). FOV of WWL-1B, however, remains the same compared to WACP-C (when I travel with my WACP-C, I always take the Canon 8-15mm/140mm domeport/N100-N120 adapter with me in addition, for the really wide WA)... Maybe the Tamron 17-28mm with Zen DP170 (plus N100/N120 adapter and extensions) comes also into this weight range (I did not count the grams so far), but FOV is not extremely wide either at the short end... It is certainly impossible to take all this in the cabin with handluggage. Domeports, WACP-C, extensions/adapters go to the check-in lugagge and we (two UW photographers) have always two additional suitcases ("diving" luggage) of check-in luggage. When we go with little airplanes to small islands, we have to book an extra-seat for the additional luggage with the airline. Of course, when some check-in luggage gets delayed or even lost, this is a problem, certainly on the arrival-trip...