Architeuthis

I do not use Sony 16-35mm, but Tamron 17-28mm behind Zen DP170 (similar to Nauticam 180) on A7R5. Also Sony 20-70mm f/4. Before I was using Panasonic 7-14mm, Zuiko 8-25mm, Zuiko 12-40mm Pro and Zuiko 8-19mm on MFT cameras, also behind Zen DP170. Center sharpness is better compared to WWL/WACP, on par with a 180° diagonal fisheye lens (I use(d) Canon 8-15mm on both systems). I was, however, never happy with ultra rectilinear WA. With Sony FF, the widest I like is 20mm. My reservations are not because of corner sharpness (in many of my WA photos, but not all, corner sharpness is not really important), but it is the way how objects are stretched out that are close to the corners. This unnatural stretching does not occur with WWL/WACP and fisheye lenses. There the objects close to the corners are compressed instead of stretched. In case this compression is too much for my taste (as sometimes occurs, when using 180° diagonal fisheye), I can easily "defish" the photo partially in LRc (100% is much too much). That said, I personally prefer an adapted Canon 8-15mm with 2x Sony TC with Nauticam 140mm domeport on the Sony FF. IQ is comparable to the WACP-C/Sony 28-60mm (that I also own), but instead of 130° maximum angle of view diagonal, I have 180° with this setup. Both Canon 8-15mm/2xTC and WACP-C offer good close-up, almost macro, and zoom-in capabilities. => l second RomiK that it is better to bite the bullet and go for WACP-C instead of WWL-1, since WACP-C is a dry lens and you avoid the drapped air bubble problem (that seems to a problem when snorkeling with whalesharks, dolphins etc., what is not uncommon in these days)

Now that you say it, I see that Massimo also made a review about the Sony 16-35mm GMII lens and says that it is at least as good behind 180mm dome compared to the Tamron...😄 (There are other reviews that say 230mm is the minimum for this lens and even then perfomance is suboptimal) Nevertheless, I find performance of Tamron 17-28mm (and also of Sony 20-70mm f/4) behind DP170 really good. For me personally, however, 20mm is enough of rectilinear WA and generally, especially for wider angles, I prefer the water contact optics/fisheye look...

I have not used Sony 16-35mm GM II behind my Zen DP170 (similar to Nauticam 180, same radius of curvature, but 10mm less diameter), but several reported (also here) that this lens does not perform well UW and requires at least a 230mm domeport (Seacam, however, told me that this lens performs perfect behind their PPO, that is a different concept)... I have Tamron 17-28mm/DP170, that has ben reported to perform much better behind domeports, and I am pretty satisfied. Did not perform the testing by myself, but see e.g. here: https://interceptor121.com/2024/04/13/tamron-17-28-f2-8-for-underwater-photography-review/ Bad performance of Sony 16-35mm GMII/180mm domeport alone is not a good argument to switch to WACP/WWL, unless one prefers the different look of the water contact optics... Wolfgang

Are there more resilient tests existing that demonstrate the superior IQ of the Marelux 135D over WACP-C? It may be that UW, behind water contact optics, the IQ of the Sony 28-60mm and 28-70mm lenses is not different. Over the water, both 28-70mm lenses, are clearly inferior and pretty soft. See here, for examle: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1759&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=1525&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 There is no difference, BTW, in the optical design between Sony FE 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS and the newer "II" version. The difference is mostly in AF mechanism and performance...

I have good experience with the Sony 20-70mm/Zen DP170 (A7R5). I had this setup in Providencia (Carribean) for photographing Carribean reef sharks. The sharks there are not shy. Also the Tamron 17-28mm works very well behind the DP170, but I did not use it there. See here some photos from this trip: I also had WACP-C/Sony 28-60mm and Canon 8-15mm/Nauticam 140mm domeport on this trip with me. Canon 8 - 15mm has very good IQ, but is too wide in most cases. The range of WACP-C/28-60mm is good, butit is recognizeably softer compared to the Sony 20-70mm/DP170 combo (that is very sharp and, hence, excellent). Today I would use the Canon 8-15mm/Sony 2x TC/Nauticam 140mm domeport combo that has similar IQ compared to WACP-C/28-60mm, but allows to zoom out to 180° diagonal (WACP-C is restricted to 130° to its maximum). It is now my standard and only WA setup, when air travelling as it covers the entire range I need (very similar range and "macro" capabilities compared to WACP-C, but allows to zoom out to 180° diagonal). See example images for Canon 8-15mm/Sony 2x TC/Nauticam 140mm domeport, but also from other photographers with other setups, here: Generally, the possibility to zoom in a lot does not help, when the sharks are behaving naturally and shy (=unbaited/feeded), unless the waters are crystal clear... Wolfgang P.S.: When money no object, the Seacam PPO/Sony 16-35mm GMII combo seems to me the top setup for such purpose (but I have zero experience with it)...🙂

This 30mm N85/N120 adapter was made by https://www.unterwasserkamera.at/shop/catalog/en/ (I have it still here and do not need it any more. In case someone is interested, I can send for little money...🙂 )

I used the Zuiko 8mm fisheye some time ago with Zen DP170 and Nauticm 140 domes. I belive also DP100 will work very good, but never used it by myself. Zuiko 8mm is a great and very sharp lens, but I soon exchanged it with adapted Canon 8-15mm and Tokina 10-17mm&0,71x speedbooster that provide also excellent IQ on MFT and offer more flexibility because of zoom... My wife is using Tokina 10-17mm&0,71x speedbooster with Zen DP100 (the bare N120 version without extension) plus 20mm N120 extension with Oly EM1II. Zoom gear is from Nauticam. This setup is not cheap, but incredibly compact and flexible and offers great IQ. The setup requires a Nauticam N85/N120 34,7mm adapter, that is now discontinued (also Canon and Tokina are now discontinued, but are likely available second hand). I guess there are other Nauticam N85/N120 adapters available that can be used, in case the original is not available second hand, better ask at Nuticam which one might work... There is a long tread about adapted fisheyes on MFT (including Tokina) in the old forum: https://waterpixels.net/wp-archive/topic/61629-canon-ef-lenses-on-mft-cameras/

As long as you are happy with this camera over the water, it will be fine for UW as well...

How is the IQ of photos made in the APS-C crop mode compared to photos using the entire sensor, but with 1.4x TC?

What one can say is, that cropping from a FF sensor will give identical results as using the lens on cameras with smaller sensors that have the pixel counts below: #1.: Using a 8-14(15)mm fisheye lens on FF and cropping 1.4x to APS-C gives 26 Mpixel (in case of Sony A7R5) and 28 Mpixel (for A7R6), etc... #2.: When cropping 2x the pixel count becomes simply a quarter, i.e. 15,3 Mpixel for A7R5 and 16,7 Mpixel for A7R6. => I believe it is a save bet that using the zoom FE lens on an APS-C camera gives the same IQ compared to an image from high resolution FF, that has been cropped to APS-C size (A6700, for comparison, has 26 Mpixel). => I am not sure about cropping down to MFT sensor size. 15-16 Mpixels are, however, still not so bad... The question is, how much IQ can be restored by the use of TCs (in case TCs are available) in comparison to cropping, when 1.4x or 2x TCs are considered... I would be very interested to see such a determination and comparison of imaging quality under standardized studio conditions (crop vs. TC), in case somebody would bother to do the tests...🙂

"If you decide you want both on a trip, consider picking up a WWL-1B. Basically the same quality as the rest, with the faster focus and greater zoom range of the WACP-C in a smaller, more travel friendly size. I planned on selling my WWL when I picked up the C, but it has been nice to have both for that reason. Edited Tuesday at 10:46 AM by ChipBPhoto" Regarding the AOVs, here is a comparison of diagonal AOVs between Nauticam wetlenses (from portchard, with Sony 28-60mm) and Canon 8-15mm +/- TCs (calculated for equisolid fisheye): I find the zoom range of Canon 8-15mm/2xTC more than plenty. I do not find that the zoom range of the WACP-C is better. On the contrary, for me personally, the wider AOV towards 170° is more important compared to the additional range at the narrow end, that the WACP-C/28-60mm delivers. When e.g. photografing shy sharks in suboptimal visibility, I am tempted to zoom in to the maximum (29,9mm in case of the Canon) in order to frame the sharks better, only to find out later that the distance is too much and hence IQ is really bad. In the end I take photos from the few occasions (if existing), when the sharks come closer and I can use shorter focal lengths... Similar is the situation for "macro" photography: Both Canon 8-15mm/2xTC and WACP-C/28-60mm allow to take photos of pretty small subjects at ridiculous short object distance (see e.g. the example photo for Canon 8-15mm/2xTC below). When selecting and postprocessing my photos at the end of a diving holiday, however, I keep (and put to my final slideshow) mostly photos taken with a dedicated macro lens on another dive (Sony 100mm +/- MFO-3 in my case), since larger object distance allows better ligth (sometimes also with snoot) and IQ (and also sharpness) with the macro lens is clearly better... => bottomline is that, for my personal needs, the narrow end of the combo, as well as "macro" capabilities, are nice to have for documentation of seldom occasions. For the real keepers the wide end is the really important part for me. Caonon 8-15mm/2xTC @29,9mm; 1/160s; F/9; ISO100; 2*HF-1 (4500K diffusers):

I have Canon 8-15mm, old Nauticam N120 140mm domeport and the 35,5mm N120/N100 adapter. No problem to use with pure fisheye lens (30mm N120 extension) and also with 2x Sony TC (60mm N120 extension)... => I guess the new Sony fisheye with N100 140mm domeport is a lot more smaller/lighter... (I guess also Canon 8-15mm +/- TC will be lighter/smaller with the N100 domeport, but not sure whether the assembly fits into it) I also have WACP-C/Sony 28-60mm, but the N100 version of WACP-C. Just needs a 30mm N100 extension, no N120/N100 adapter required.

It may be a similar situation to Tokina 10-17mm on APS-C: IQ bad over the water, but UW not really worse compared to excellent lenses behind domeport. Another consideration is comparison to Nauticam's FCP-1: I never used FCP and cannot say from own experince, but the big shots here say FCP is not as sharp overall compared to WACP-C. I conclude that, optically, FCP cannot be better compared to Canon 8-15mm/2xTC, maybe it is even worse. Maybe similar AF advantage as WACP has over f/8 of Canon 8-15mm/2xTC. But then focus shift issues might occur when, after focusing, aperture is closing from wide open to f/13, or even more, to achieve good corners (when focusing already at f/13, AF is likely also not so good in dim light)...

I fully agree (similar IQ, a tad better in dim light with WACP-C). At home I can easily choose bewteen Canon 8-15m/2x TC and WACP-C/Sony 28-60mmm. Problem starts when air travelling. Then I have to decide wich one of these two to take with me, then I always decide for the fisheye...

This, more or less, how I do it (I let LRc create the daily subfolders in a folder that I have precreated and take only the photos that I select as possible keepers; XMP files are stored along with the RAW files in the same directory). I find the LRc system, however, confusing: when I start and need to select a subfolder of a specific day, I see the volumes (one SSD at the PC and another NAS), but no subdirectories, as my LRc is configured at present. Under each volume, I just see the subdirectories representing individual days (I rather would prefer to have the entire path, e.g. ws_data/phts/2026/2026_06_Beli/2026-06-14 as specific example, and this long path just for higher subdirectories, where I have selected to see). That makes the selection and keeping the overview difficult. Furthermore, some daily subdirectories got lost in time in LRc, fortunately not on the volume (certainly my fault by pushing accidentially a wrong button). Upon reimport, LRc does not let me, since the photos are considered duplicates... After processing the photos of an individual trip get transferred to the NAS. I have to tell LRc individually for every daily subdirectory, that the location of the files has changed. Just a lot of unnecessary operations wasting my time... => These are just two complaints out of many. For me, the Library module is pretty unintuitive...

No it does not! I organize my photos very similar as you do, but I want to organize my photos completely outside of LRc (without the many extra troubles involved). I just do not need this module and there is no option to work without it...

Yes -absolutely! But Adobe should provide the option to do it the simple and individual way too. I think I am not asking for too much...

I use LRc and PS with Macbook Pro M1... Great software and no need for an alternative, but what makes me outrageous is the "Library" system: Instead of having the option to define the folders/subfolders from where to take the photos and where to place the Adobe specific files by oneself and just use the "Develop" module, one has to use the entire Adobe Libraray-system that I find complicated and confusing... I wrote them several times, but still they do not offer this simple and easy to implement option...

This item is sold now...

I post here some photos that allow to estimate the CFWA capabilities of the Canon 8-15mm/2x Sony TC setup (Sony A7R5 and Nauticam 140mm domeport) and compare to the Sony 100mm GM macro & MFO-3. Maybe the photos are of interest for someone: In late spring 2026 I was able to photograph a Tompot Blenny (Parablennius gattorugine) in its "wedding suit", first with the Canon 8-15mm/2xTC setup and on the next day the same fish at the same location with the Sony 100mm macro GM +/- MFO-3. Canon 8-15mm @29,9mm; f/11; 1/160s; ISO 100; 2* HF-1 (4500K diffusers): Canon 8-15mm @29,9mm; f/11; 1/160s; ISO 100; 2* HF-1 (4500K diffusers): Sony 100mm&MFO-3; f/13; 1/20s; ISO 100; 2* HF-1 (4500K diffusers): Sony 100mm; f/14; 1/250s; ISO 100; 2* HF-1 (4500K diffusers): And here 100% crops of the photos above: Canon 8-15/2xTC: Canon 8-15/2xTC(b): Sony 100mm: Sony 100mm&MFO-3: I think the performance of the fisheye lens plus TC is not bad, when compared to the dedicated macro lens (As expected, there is some softening produced by the 2x TC, but I think I can tolerate it). => It turns out that for my needs two setups (Canon 8-15mm/2xTC and Sony 100mm+/-MFO-3+/-SMC-1 (I am considering now to acquire a double flip holder 😄)) cover the range, with substantial overlap in the fish portrait/moderate macro range. Curious to hear what you think... Wolfgang

An update of PS became available (v27.11). I updated PS from v27.9 to v27.11 and the problem is solved now...🙂

A pure 8-15mm fisheye means either 180° diagonal or circular. The application range is limited to the very wide picture. CFWA is still possible, but often critters are too shy at this very small working distance. This means it would often not be possible to make a photo, since the animal is scared away @15mm, while @30mm I can take the photo (similar to WACP-C). On the positive side is excellent sharpness (at least with Canon fisheye and in comparison to WACP-C). I did not co a comparison by myself yet, nor did I see such a comparison: an high resolution sensors like A7R5, cropping MAY give reasonable IQ, MAYBE not far away from using the TC. With 2x TC one gets flexibility at the cost of the circular fisheye option (that I seldom use). The flexibility is great, e.g. the application range is considerably overlapping with a true macro lens (e.g. Sony 100mm GM) +/- MFO-3 , of course at the opposite ends...