Architeuthis

PetaPixelSony 100mm f/2.8 Macro G Master Review: Close to PerfectSony has finally revamped its main macro lens, and the feature-rich new 100mm lens is worth a much closer look.

Right, thank you, 89 is a typo (cannot correct anymore) - diameter of the 90mm is 79mm...

According to Sony, the diameter is 81mm (https://www.dpreview.com/news/7072539149/sony-100mm-f2p8-macro-gm-lens-annoncement ). Diameter of the 90mm macro is 89mm (https://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/lenses/sony_fe_90_2p8_macro_g_oss/specifications )... => So no worry, it will fit in case these specs. are correct... Wolfgang I am really excited about this new lens. Very likely to become a legendary macro lens and an excellent argument to go with Sony FF UW...🫶

I have considered the physical dimensions of the lenses and TCs and figured out how to house them within the Nauticam N100 system: First the physical dimensions of lenses and TCs, together with the extensions recommended by Nauticam (recommended extensions for Sony 100mm combinations calculated from physical length difference to the 90mm lens): Secondly, the N100 flatports and N100 extensions that are, at present, available (before using a specific flatport, I would better ask at Nauticam whether the inner diameter of the port and possible obstacles (e.g. focus knob) are compatible with the assembly (I am sure they have the lens and all items and can test out)): => Already at the current state it should be feasible to house the new Sony 100mm macro using the 105mm flatport with the 30mm extension (as Romi writes), but, as Phil writes, there will be a gap of 12,6mm between front of the lens and the glass of the port, what may be unpleasant, especially when wetlenses as e.g. SMC-1 are to be used (also less than perfectly cleaned portglass will lower IQ the more, the larger is the gap). The 105mm flatport, however, will work together almost perfect with the 1.4xTC using a 35mm extension and probably, quite reasonable, with the 2x TC using the 50mm extension (a gap of 5,3mm will be present). A huge number of combinations of flatports and extensions is possible, here, as one example, the housing using the N100 macroport55: => Both lenses and Sony 100mm with both teleconverters fit perfect. Exception is the pure Sony 100mm macro lens, but the gap of 2,6mm should also be o.k (normally extensions are fabricated at 5mm intervalls and the next, best fitting, extension is chosen (maybe even the 30mm & 35mm extension would fit perfectly (2,4mm too short in theory), but this has to be tested out by someone who has these extensions at hand))). ...

It seems that the TCs not only increase working distance at a given magnification, but also maximum magnification is increased (minimum working distance of the entire lens remains the same)... e.g. here: https://coinimaging.com/teleconverter.html seems we get 100mm, 140mm and 200mm macro lens with 1.4x, 2x and 2.8x max. magnification (and more, probably even SMC-1(3) will work)...😍 I will wait now for serious reviews for the lens (with and w/o TCs) and in case they are good, I ought to invest some money at the beginning of next year...😄 Here another interesting description of the new lens: https://petapixel.com/2025/09/30/sonys-new-100mm-f-2-8-macro-gm-is-its-best-macro-lens-ever/

The new lens is GM quality has 1.4x magnification and also takes TCs offering 100mm, 140mm and 200mm (!) (not sure whether 2xTC means 1.4x or 2.8x magnification as stated in the article below) https://www.dpreview.com/news/7072539149/sony-100mm-f2p8-macro-gm-lens-annoncement

Thank you for sharing photos and experience... The Zuiko 60mm macro and the MFO-3 apparently cover the range of two different setups: #1 Zuiko 60mm and #2 Zuiko 12-40mm behind domeport. Will you continue to use Zuiko 12-40mm & domeport or is the MFO-3 a perfect substitute?

Sharpness and microcontrast in the center are not affected by a domeport and when Tamron 17-28mm or Sony 20-70mm are regarded, are better compared to the WACP-C/18-60mm combo (this is noticed in very clear waters only, otherwise the water is the rate limiting factor). This is not just my subjective opinion (I did not measure with testcharts, just by looking at the photos), but several others here have similar impression... Furthermore, many (but not all) prefer the moderate fisheye look over the rectilinear WA look. The wider the angle, the more elongated the parts of the motif close to the corners become, when using rectilinear lenses behind domeport (I find this effect far from optimal). An exception may be motifs (e.g. wrecks) where there are straight lines that potentially can get distorted, but even here many (including me) still prefer fisheye and take care how to place these straight lines into the final photo so that the effect does not become distracting... The WACP-C/28-60mm provides a useful zoomrange in a handsome package compared to many rectilinear lenses behind domeports (many here, BTW, say that WACP-C/28-60mm performs essentially the same as WWL-1/28-60mm (what is smaller, lighter and cheaper, but a wetlens)). It is difficult to predict how WA lenses perform behind a domeport. For most WA lenses, however, a 230mm domeport is considered to be required to give acceptable corner sharpness. The Tamron 17-28mm is an exception, since it performs already very well behind a 170mm (or 180mm) domeport...

I am not sure that there was ever a "serious" rumor for magnification >1x (maybe just wishful thinking of us Sony users 😆), but yeah - this would make this lens a "no-brainer" also for me... (The Tamron 90mm is not only cheaper and clearly sharper compared to the Sony 90mm (see e.g. here: The-Digital-Picture.comSony FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G OSS Lens Image QualityView the image quality delivered by the Sony FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G OSS Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses., but when it comes to f/11 or smaller, the difference is pretty small...)

I do not have Sony 16-35mm, but I use the similar Tamron 17-28mm/Zen DP170 and also have WACP-C/28-60mm with A7R5... In the center and midframe the Tamron is clearly sharper and has more contrast compared to the WACP-C combo. The edges look different with rectilinear (Tamron) compared to moderate fisheye (WACP-C), it is not just corner sharpness that is different. I, personally, prefer the fisheye look (=object in the center enlarged and corner compressed (instead of stretched out as with rectilinear WA)). I guess that at comparable aperture WACP-C is sharper in the corners (this is what Nauticam says, but note that aperture values of the lenses alone (28-60mm vs. e.g. 16-35mm rectilinear are not directly comparable, as the wetlens changes the angle of view and, hence, focal length), but never did a a rigorous comparison myself (I find that corner sharpness not seldom is less important). For me, personally, the Sony 20-70mm f/4 with Zen DP170 is enough when rectilinear WA is concerned with FF. At 20mm the "rectilinear distortion" is still decent and the image is tack-sharp with brilliant microcontrast i center and midframe (clearly sharper and more contrast than WACP-C). When wider angles than 20mm are required (majority of cases), I prefer WACP-C/28-60mm (recently, since approx. 1 year), I prefer the Canon 8-15mm/2x Sony TC, which gives similar IQ, but has a more versatile zoomrange compared to WACP-C (for widest 180° diagonal angle the pure 8-15mm gives best IQ, but unfortunately one cannot zoom in))... Wolfgang

Which port are you using that works both with with Canon 8-15mm and the Sony 20-70mm? Does this port give good IQ for both?

PetaPixelThe Winners of Ocean Photographer of the Year 2025A talent-packed competition.

Manual focus at distances < 1.5m means that AF stops where UW photography (almost) starts and not even close to macro ... (maybe with diopters and/or extensions the AF could be brought to a useful range, but very questionable whether such a setup will have AF at satisfaction?) I really hope this rumor turns out to be wrong, otherwise this lens will not be very useful for UW...☹️

Seems I overread the statements about Retra and Backscatter (anyhow I send them a message, interesting to see whether the answers are still the same)... I did regular lighting with two MF-2s with and w/o diffusers on few dives (only six), but it was sobering for me. It works, but at maximum power one has to carefully collect every single photon and there is no room to play around with e.g. strobe positioning (that would require more strobe power in order to still give enough light). I believe, that a macro strobe should provide plenty of power for different techniques (e.g. diffusers, snoot, different strobe positions), not just closest position to get enough light and one should not have to help out by increasing ISO or open up aperture to values one would regard suboptimal for a specific setting. Strobe power should not be the limiting element in the setup. Too much compromise for my taste (I am now thinking whether to keep one plus snoot and put one to classified or whether I should sell everything)... It is a pity, since the MF-2 with snoot appears to be a very handsome and smart solution to macro photography in case it had more power...

To my personal and subjective experience (no tests with test charts), Canon 8-15mm with Sony 2x TC is a bit soft, but WACP-C/28-60mm is not better... I cannot tell about the Sony 16-35mm GM II, but I have Tamron 17-28mm and use it behind Zen DP-170. Compared to WACP-C/28-60mm (and also Canon 8-15mm/Sony 2x TC)) this combination is clearly the sharpest (in the center). The Sony lens is certainly optically better than the Tamron per se, but UW it depends how good it works together with a domeport and which size is required.. Wolfgang P.S.: See also the shark photo of Fabian from August 10th (who was the first to use Canon 8-15mm with Sony 2x TC here) as an example for Canon 8-15mm&2x TC: https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/2735-bluesharks-manual-or-s-priority/#comment-18172