Architeuthis

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...

I use Canon 8-15mm f/4 fisheye on A7R5 (Nauticam 140mm domeport). Most of the time with 2x Sony TC. I also tested Sony 1,4x TC and Kenko Pro HD 1,4x TCs, but the images are not sharper with the 1,4x TCs compared to the Sony 2x TC. IQ of the pure fisheye w/o TC is tack sharp and better (also better compared to WACP-C). I will not switch to one of the new fisheye lenses in case they are incompatible with TCs. I have WACP-C/Sony 28-60mm (similar to WWL-1, but no water in the optics), but use it very seldom. IQ is comparable to Canon 8-15/2x TC, but the widest diagonal angle possible is only 130°. Otherwise (e.g. close focus minimum object distance) very similar to Canon 8-15mm/2x TC. Regarding fisheye distortion, WACP-C and Canon 8-15mm/2xTC are pretty comparable at the same AOVs (e.g. 130°). The more narrow the AOV, the less pronounced the fisheye effect gets. Therefore distortion at 180° is stronger compared to 130°, but not much difference between systems at identical AOVs.

Please do not harass the nudies... Otherwise as Grantmac says: highest shutter speed, base ISO and high aperture value. In case even higher shutter speed does not bring the desired result, try HSS flash sync (e.g. when wider aperure desired). Even better results by using a snoot (in combination with above)... Wolfgang

I read the page linked above more carefully: AF is for infinity to 0,5m. Everything in macro distance (< 0,5m) needs MF... => This lens is pretty useless for most UW scenarios... ☹️

Here are specs. of this new lens: https://www.dpreview.com/news/laowa-35mm-2p8-macro-lens-announcement-autofocus/ It is indeed a FF lens. AF (for mount variants where AF is available) works only up to 0,5m. Since this lens will probably be used behind a dome, this may be o.k. ...

I do not have it by myself (too much bulk as well as too expensive), but I imagine that the Nauticam EMWL with Angled relay lens may be perfect for this issue (CFWA and perspective from the bottom). (different "objective lenses" from 60° to 160° are available)