Architeuthis

The Canon 8-15mm can focus very close to the domeport, did not test systematically, but one can photograph pretty small subjects. With Nauticam 140mm (N120) it needs a 35mm N120 extension. Same extension as with Zen DP170 (N120 version without built in extension). It could be used also with Zen DP100 (N120 version without built-in extension) with a 30mm N120 extension, but this port is so small that the light-shade of the lens has to be removed to fit into the domeport. I used this combination few times at the beginning and IQ looked also o.k. ... Massimo made nice descriptions/tests of the use of Canon 8-15mm on MFT, some time ago: https://interceptor121.com/2019/11/02/fisheye-zoom-for-micro-four-thirds/ https://interceptor121.com/2019/11/30/canon-8-15-mm-fisheye-on-the-panasonic-gh5-pool-tests/ I almost forgot to mention: To use these combinations on Nauticam N85 housings you need, in addition, the N85 to N120 34.7mm adapter, e.g. here: https://www.panoceanphoto.com/Nauticam-N85-N120-34.7mm-Port-Adapter-Metabones => I hear it has been discontinued by Nauticam, but it seems there are still some around (not much demand I guess) Wolfgang

Just out of curiosity: could you compare, at similar AOV, the IQ in the center and also the sharpness in the edges between Tokina and WWL (at which f stops are the corners comparable)?

I cannot comment on all options, but have used some of them on EM1II and EM5II (Nauticam housings): ad (2): I used Oly 8mm behind Zen DP170 and IQ is excellent. Since I was using the adapted fisheyes, I did not use it again, because the IQ is the same and the ability to zoom in is a big advantage... ad (3): I used the Canon 8-15mm with 1x Metabones and Nauticam 140mm domeport. I would say this (but also the Tokina) is the FCP for the MFT system. Excellent IQ. One should, however, not forget the Tokina 10-17mm (Canon version), that I (and now Lisi is using it) used with Zen DP100 (N120 version without built-in extension), 0,71x speedbooster and 20mm N120 extension. I could not see a difference in IQ to the native Oly 8mm f/1.8 or the Canon 8-15mm - but this combo is incredibly compact (excellent CFWA usability, for better you might have to go for EMWL). The Tokina can also be used, at very good IQ, with the same N120 20mm extension and DP100 with the 1x glassless adapter and then delivers angles of views similar to WWL/WACP (when animals are more shy)... => I would say Canon 8-15mm when you plan to switch later to a FF camera, you can then continue to use lens, domeport and extension (this is what I did; ironically the size of the rigg is almost the same compared to MFT (but of course angles of view are less versatile)), but Tokina when you will stay with MFT (or plan to switch to APS-C later)... ad(4): I had the Pana 7-14mm and used it with Zen DP170. I seldom used it, because this combo was a dissapointment, not just corners, IQ lacked contrast, "mushy" even in the center. I almost always preferred, first the native, and then the adapted fisheyes. I have sold this lens already, no use for it. Lisi is now using the Zuiko 8-25mm f/4.0 rectilinear behind Zen DP170 and this combo gives excellent IQ and a very versatile zoom range, much better compared to Pana 7-14mm in both aspects (but not ideal for CFWA; she likes rectilinear much more than me)... Wolfgang

Were the photos made at 14mm? If yes, I believe the edges are, more or less, normal (what does "null" mean? When I look at the photos both have slightly blurred edges, pretty much the same)... Not all of the "blurriness" I see there is due to domeport optics. To some extend it is just a depth of field issue, as the substrate in the edges is closer as the central object is. There is also some kind of "rectilinear" distortion in the edges, that can be observed even without a domeport, when you make comparable photos over the water... WWL/WACP will improve "domeport blurriness" and "rectilinear distortion", but cannot help with out of focus issues. It will also introduce some kind of "fisheye distortion", that is, however, regarded as pleasant by many... Wolfgang

As Barmaglot says, the extension for the Nauticam zoomgear needs to be 40mm (other parameters remaining equal). I have a 3D file for such an extension printed and added it to the other extensions: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ihczuhycokiyjdyja2a13/Canon_815_2xKenko.stl?rlkey=wx5slo4sb2evhd43h81wkxuuk&dl=0 => Before printing, check the length of the Sony 2x TC that you intend to use. It may deviate from the length of the Kenko 2x TC (i.e. 40mm) as it contains glass optics... Wolfgang

It is possible to encounter a seahorse posing in the open water with an earpad or a facemask, but the chances are extremely small. Therefore such photos will be always suspects of un-allowed manipulations (without witnesses one will never know)... From what I know, judges in competitions are instructed to reject any photo that is suspicious of such manipulations - hard to understand that such photos made it (but one has to admit that these photos are very strong in showing the impact of pollution on the sea)... Wolfgang

Although the 28-60mm is a kit lens (and therefore is regarded by some to be inferior) it is quite a sharp lens, much better than the older Sony 28-70mm (see e.g. https://dustinabbott.net/2020/11/sony-fe-28-60mm-f4-5-6-review/ or https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sony-FE-28-60mm-f-4-5.6-Lens.aspx)... Therefore I think that an alternative lens for WACP/WWL-1 is not really required (only 28mm and up are useable with these optics and 50mm is not so much). It would be great if WWL-C, that requires 24mm and up, would be working with this lens (but maybe the lens is too big)... Wolfgang

MAYBE (in the case the port of Seafrogs is longer) one could ask Saga or WWW.unterwaserkamera.at to make a Seafrogs/Nauticam adapter and just use the Nauticam ports for the required lenses (or MAYBE such an adapter already exists?)? Wolfgang

I believe most discussions on IQ of rectilinear vs. fisheye vs. WACP are about blurriness of the corners, especially at wider aperture (I guess that Alex talks about IQ in the corners in the video)... There is also IQ in the center and this type of IQ, I personally, regard much more important. Presumably UW the IQ in the center is pretty similar for all types of lenses and ports, taking into account that the optical conditions UW are rate limiting for this type of IQ (and not the optics) - but this still has to be shown by objective testing (e.g. by measuring resolution UW in aquariums like Nauticam have). Subjective rating by single testers involves probably a lot of "gut-feeling", that in turn is (unintentionally) influenced by size, weight and price of the optics used (the more, the better central IQ is possibly rated)... Wolfgang

Here I have more example photos: First some kind of "reference": a closeup of approx. the closest crop area in order to see what blurr is caused by the printer and not by the lenses. The photo was made with the Sony 90mm macro lens. Closeup: Sony 90mm G macro; f/9.0: => Any irregularity in the lines and blurriness comes now from the laserprinter. We can see that the resolution lines are usable up to the number of 11, i.e. roughly 3850 lines/image heigth in the test settings used (what is pretty good). Then I made a test photo under the test setting (=entire test chart with three resolution charts fills, more or less, the frame) with the presumably best lens that I have and made an extreme crop of the central area (this area, is indeed and extreme crop, the length of the zoomed in image is approx 570 pixels)... Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM; f/4.0: => this is supposed to be a very good resolution/microcontrast... And this is now compared to the Sony 28-60mm, that I will use soon behind the WACP-C. Just the bare lens, but I guess the resolution will not increase because of the WACP-C, but the high quality water contact optics will likely also not male it worse : Sony 28-60mm 28mm; f/4.0: Sony 28-80; f/8.0: And here the 28-60mm lens, but zoomed in: Sony 28-60mm; @60mm; f/5.6: => Interested to hear what you say about this little test and how you rate central sharpness compared to the fisheye with and without TCs... Wolfgang

What lens did you use? WWL-1 or fisheye with TC?? Wolfgang

Yes. Canon 8-15mm gives 16-30mm when used with 2x TC (15-21mm are usable when paired with 1.4x TC). There are small differences between DX (1.5x) and Canon APS-C (1.6x). Hence the Tokina gives the same angle of view as 15-25.5mm (DX) and 16-27mm (Canon APS-C ) would give on FF. Sony APS-C has crop factor of 1.5x, like DX...

This is an interesting comparison. I believe the comparison could be valid if a WA (or better fisheye lens) with similar angle of view is taken and compared WACP-C (as Massimo says UW, but also over the water will give a hint (who of us is going to take the equipment UW, just to answer such a crazy question?😁)). Then one may be able to find out to which extend the aperture number is changed by the WACP/WWL... I think aperture value is altered for sure, as AOV and focal length change and this change is in favor of WACP/WWL, but certainly not by simply multiplying with the 0.36x factor that Nauticam gives (is this even a factor for focal length or maybe the change in size of an object at a given distance or something else?)... Wolfgang

I am wondering whether there is information how WWL/WACP water contact optics affects aperture value: When using a teleconverter, because the focal length is changed by the TC and the absolute diameter of the aperture opening remains the same, the aperture number (focal length/aperture diameter) multiplies accordingly (e.g. 2x and 1.4x with appropriate TCs). Nauticam homepage says that WWL/WACP multiplies focal length by 0.36x. Does this mean it acts like a speed booster and apertures values of e.g. the Sony 28-60mm f/4-f/5.6 becomes f/2-f2.8 at the extreme ends? A photo taken with WWL/WACP at f/8 of the lens would be in fact taken at f/2.9?? Wolfgang

Here is another series, same photos at higher magnification, the results are surprising to me: w/o TC; 14mm; f/4.0: 1.4x TC; 14mm; f/5.6: 2x TC; 16mm; f/8.0: Above the three combinations, all at focal length to give approx 180° diagonal. Here a similar crop from the 2x combination at the long end: 2x TC; 30mm; f/8.0: => The surprise to me is that the 1.4x TC performs worst. First thought was, that the photo is blurry, because out of focus. I made, however, two independent photos and they look similar. Also the structure of the blank paper itself, without the printing, looks in focus and just alike the other photos. It is just the transition from black to white that gets more blurred with the 1.4x (I guess this transition is, to some extend, a measure of microcontrast?). I am quite sure that all photos are in focus, but will try to make another series in the future, just to check... What may be the reason? My guess: #1.: The photos with different TCs, but all at approx. 180° diagonal, are obtained at different focal length of the original lens. The performance of a zoom lens is very well known to depend on focal length used... #2.: The 1.4x TC was the first that I bought and it is not the highest quality available (the HD pro grade was not available at the time of purchase), while the 2x TC is the highest grade ("HDpro")... Wolfgang

Yes, with the 2x TC, 16mm are derived from adjusting 8mm at the lens itself...

And here another series, at comparable and close to real life aperture of f/8.0, but at the widest end possible for each combination: w/o TC; 14mm; f/8.0: 1.4x TC; 21mm; f/8.0: 2x TC; 30mm; f/8.0: I am eager to hear what you people think and how you would rate IQ. If wantes, I can also show other series... Maybe I will take the 2x TC once UW, just to have real life pictures, but my expectation is that it is not really worth going for it... Wolfgang P.S.: My personal rating is that the pure resolution of the combinations is good in all cases, but the photos get more and more "mushy", the more TC is used (worsening of microcontrast?)...

Here come now some cropped sections from the center. I think the corners do not make sense with fisheye lenses (it has a reason why serious test sides do not measure resolution performance of fisheye lenses), but UW and behind domes the corners of fisheye lenses are always good compared to rectilinear. Note also that the ratio of the image heigth of the glued in and printed out test chart is ROUGHLY around 3,5x, so the numbers in the test chart need to be multiplied with 350 to give resolution in lines/image heigth. Due to the print out process numbers between 1 (= approx. 350 lines/IH) and 6 (= 2100 lines/IH) make sense, sometimes one could go as far as 8 (= 2800 lines/IH). 2800 l/IH may not seem much with precious lenses and modern cameras, but many here doubth that such resolutions can be achieved UW, because of the diffraction of light in water and by the particles and/or solutes in water etc. ... Here the first series, again "wide" open, but at the shortest possible focal lengthes: w/o TC; 14mm; f/4.0: 1.4x TC; 14mm; f/5.6: 2x TC; 16mm; f/8.0: More to come...

Hi Fabian, I did not use a 2x TC UW so far, but I have both Kenko 1.4x and 2x and the Canon 8-15mm fisheye lens. To be precise these are (there are different models around): #1.: Kenko C-AF 1.4x Teleplus Pro 300 and the #2.: 2x Teleplus HDpro. I do use the 1.4x UW with the Canon 8-15mm with Sony A7R5. As Massimo writes in his reviews, IQ is o.k. with 1.4x TC. I. personally, find the usable range of 15-21mm a bit small, but better than nothing... I once bought the 2x TC and tested it on a grill party at home with the Canon 8-15mm (but this was with the MFT camara, an Olympus EM1II that I had then). The photos were so low contrast that I did not further test for UW use... Instigated by your question, I just went out with my A7R5 and made some over-the water photos with Canon 8-15mm, without TC and with 1.4x and 2x TCs. I think this should give an impression of the overall IQ and whether it makes sense to test out further UW... I tested at the extreme focal lengthes at different aperture values and changed the object distance to make the test chart, more or less, fill the frame... Here first three uncropped photos w/o and with 1.4x and 2x TCs at the extreme focal lengths and aperture "wide" open: w/o TC; 14mm; f/4.0: 1.4x TC; 21mm; f/5.6: 2x TC; 30mm; f/8.0: In subsequent post(s) I will show comparable crops of the central part of the image at different settings... Wolfgang

I hope the f/1.4 is a "silent post" error and in fact it is a 15-35mm zoom fisheye of the "art" optical grade... Really interesting, but it is unlikely it will replace my Canon 8-15mm fisheye in case it is just a prime lens... Wolfgang

I have the BenQ SW270c (QHD resolution). It fully fits my requirements and I can recommend it... I find the hardware calibration very useful and easy, also the possibility to switch between sRGB, aRGB and BW via the special "hockeypuck". I am not sure that with software calibration the results would be similarily good. The hood that is delivered along with the monitor is extremely useful and improves IQ a lot in real life (if going for another brand, I would co-order such a hood immediately)... In case I would have to buy a monitor now, I would go with the 32" and 4k option, as you already did (no real need for this, 27" and QHD are great, but just in case). No need to look at a bigger monitor from further distance, in case the size of the photo would be too large (what I doubt will be the case), one can make the window smaller and use the rest of the space for something else... Maybe a look at Eizo, but they are in another league financially (maybe also in quality)... Wolfgang

My photo rucksack was weighted already several times by different airlines. It was always o.k., but limit then was 12kg, now it is 7-8 kg with many airlines. I have now a big fishing vest for traveling - in case there are problems I can stuff items into it until the weight fits, after passing control I would put the items back (so far it was never necessary)... Wolfgang

In case someone persuades a company to produce such an UW fisheye lens, please tell them we want a zoom lens...😃 Wolfgang

MAYBE the 24-50 f2.8 will work together with WWL-C...

Thank you Dave... I am a Nauticam/Sony/A7 user. I guess that the gearwheel part of the Nikon zoomgear will fit also to Nauticam N100 housings for Sony FF? Does anyone know? If yes, it will be easy to use just the gearwheel part and put e.g. a cylinder structure on it via software (e.g. ThinkerCad) to fit the appropriate Sony FE lens... Wolfgang