Canon 16-35mm II with Seacam Superdome

Awhile back, there was a discussion of how to avoid the reflection (e.g., of the lettering around the front of your lens) that sometimes shows up in photos when shooting at or towards the sun. The "obvious" solution, i.e., using the sunshade that comes with the lens, is impossible with many uw housings because it won't fit through the opening of the dome port. That is certainly the case with the Seacam Superdome.

Someone (Stephen Frink as I recall) came up with an ingenious solution - using a rubber sunshade, trimmed to allow for wide angle shooting. I used that successfully with my old 16-35mm and 17-40mm lenses.

Now that I have the 16-35mm II, however, which is bigger (82mm vs. 77mm for the old 16-35), I can't seem to find a rubber sunshade that doesn't have a plastic base that still sticks out from the lens slightly--too far to let it go into the superdome. Anyone discovered a solution yet?

You can use some black felt on the front bezel of the lens to cover up the lettering I believe. Steve sent me some felt to use that had adhesive on the back - works great.

Cheers

James

You can use some black felt on the front bezel of the lens to cover up the lettering I believe. Steve sent me some felt to use that had adhesive on the back - works great.

 

Cheers

James

Hey Bruce - I updated that rubber lens hood solution with this below. Material is from Edmund Scientific.

http://www.seacamusa.com/most-recent-1740reflections.shtml

Also, I recently asked Harald to create a Superdome with a black-flocked coating over the aluminum inside flat part of the port. We call it the Superdome AR (anti-reflective), and is only available with the coated glass.

BTW ... have you ever really had it show up on the 16-35II yet? I ask because I haven't done anything to my 16-35II yet, and it has seemed fine in terms of reflections. I haven't even blacked out the white letters, which I've always done with all my wide lenses. Somehow, I think this lens is more forgiving than the old 16-35 and 17-40 with those annoying concentric rings showing up in reflection. Not from any empirical test, but certainly my impression.

BTW ... have you ever really had it show up on the 16-35II yet? I ask because I haven't done anything to my 16-35II yet, and it has seemed fine in terms of reflections...

Actually, yes, I've had problems. Here's a case in point - notice the lens lettering just below the diver. I'll order some of the stuff from Edmunds...Thanks!

Actually, yes, I've had problems. Here's a case in point - notice the lens lettering just below the diver. I'll order some of the stuff from Edmunds...Thanks!

Hmmm ... its never a problem until it becomes one, and then inevitably on a lovely shot like yours. I guess I should that this as preemptive warning to quit being lazy and to modify my new lens as well now.

Thanks Bruce.

So, can't wait to hear... are your corners soft???

So, can't wait to hear... are your corners soft???

Can't really tell very well yet because I've only used it in Socorro, so most shots are blue water with subject in the inner part of the frame (like the one I attached).

However, in reviewing the dozen or so that could be almost considered "reef" shots (although none were really any good, so I won't show them to you ), I found exactly what I would have expected based on Stephen Frink's testing; it depends on aperture, and this lens (like most wa zooms) really demands high apertures. As long as aperture was f/8 or higher, the corners were "almost" as sharp as the other stuff in roughly the same focal plane, whereas when I let the aperture get down to f/4 or lower, the corners were quite (unacceptably) soft. Moral of the story: shoot this lens in aperture priority or manual, and force yourself to keep the aperture as high as possible -- minimum of f/8, and preferably even higher...unless you plan to crop out the outer 1/4 of the photo later (which I've been known to do).