Wide Angel on E-M1 in Nauticam Housing

Hello,

I bought an E-M1 in a Nauticam housing.

Now I am looking for recommendations for wide angel Solutions.

The 8mm FE is to extreme for me and no posibility.

Now there ist the 9-18mm and the Panasonic 7-14mm.

Which lens would be the better choice?

Can somebody show me how the Corner Sharpeness is when Shooting at the widest end with open aperture?

What would be a goud working aperture where also the Corners are sharp?

Are there Problems with heavy vignetting?

Are there other possibilities for domes beside the nauticam 4" and 6" Dome.

The 6" Dome has quite huge dimensions so that for travelling this could be a bigger Problem.

I hope that somebody can help me to find the right decisson.

Thanks in advance.

Armin

There is no issue with vignetting, in terms of corner sharpness both lenses have challenges the 9-18 can take diopters which improve corner sharpness though of course introduce other problems. There is a user here Storker that has done some tests and achieved in my opinion good results on the 9-18mm

The 7-14 with any dome solution is much more expensive than the 9-18. In terms of field of view you are talking about 114 vs 100 which is much more than what it looks on paper. As you can.t put diopters on the 7-14 corner sharpness becomes a matter of larger and more expensive domes that make the set up much bigger than the 4"m ports of the 9-18

I have also tested this add on for the PZ 14-42 that may be worth if you have it already

http://interceptor121.com/2015/02/22/panasonic-lumix-g-x-vario-14-42mm-with-fisheye-converter-dmw-gfc1/

Thanks for your answer.

One reason for me to change to mft was the size for travelling.

So for the 7-14 the 6"Dome of Nauticam would be the smallest solution?

I would be good to see Pictures uncropped, with open aperture from the 7-14mm and the 9-18mm.

What would be the normal working aperture?

Regards Armin

Maybe sombody can give me a tip where i can find some Fotos taken with the 7-14mm underwater with exifs?

Thanks

Armin

Google underwater photography guide then look for best four third lenses

i have been shooting all three lenses, 8mm, 9-18 and 7-14 for years and most recently since its release with the E-M1 and NA-EM1. The 9-18 is a decent lens but the choice for most highness shooters is the 7-14mm zoom because of the extra 14 degrees of field of view F/4 across the range, better build quality, better image quality and more. The debate over the Panasonic 7-14mm or 9-18 or 8mm fisheye has been going on for years and I am sure that if you do some searching on this site and in the olympus user and Panasonic user sections of ScubaBoard.com you will find much information and several images taken with all lenses.

To further confuse this issue for you, Olympus has announced they will release their own 7-14 zoom which will be a faster F/2.8 lens and the Olympus 8 mm fisheye which will be a much faster F/1.8 lens. Both are to be released in the next six months with 7-14 coming first. No size information has been released other than photos in which both lens appear larger than the Panasonic offerings, so it is not completely clear if current ports will work well with these new lenses.

The current 7-14 is my first choice for shooting wide angle and the 8mm is my choice for CFWA where you want to get within a few mm of your subject. Both of these lenses clearly play much different rolls in U/W photography just as they do for topside photography. I would at some point be wanting to own both and most pro shooters and high-end enthusiast agree that a fisheye and a wide zoom along with a macro lens or two cover most of your U/W needs.

The beauty of the 7-14 is for me the 170 mm dome port size. Lenses for full-frame and APS-C need ports in the 230mm to 200mm range just to cover the same angle of view with not a bit better corner sharpness and in many cases much worse corners.

To say that the 7-14 zoom lens is only good for things like wrecks and whales is just BS. Look on Facebook at the whale images posted by Fantasea Line and Amanda Cotton over the past week. These images were taken with a Sony RX100 III and the BigEye add-on lens that restores the cameras 84 degree AOV at 24mm equivalent and a lens I was recently told by a poster here was not very useful as a wide lens. A talented photographer like Amanda can find a way to make things work to produce publishable images.

If it were me I would be waiting to see the new Olympus releases and deciding between going with the new stuff or scoring the Panasonic going into the used market by those upgrading.

let me diverge on this topic some. I have both the Oly 9-18 behind a Zen port on an Oly housing. I bought a Pany 8mm FE on sale at Reef and now I see the cost of a special Zen port for that lens is $800 !!! Can you offer any subsitutes for that port?

Given I specifically want to do CFWA.

BTW I also own an Tokina 10-17 which I used with my Nkon before I stopped lugging that rig around~

I had the same issues when it came to the size of the port for travel. However I ended up going for the 7-14 and the zen dome (that also allows me to use the 12-40 pro lens) and I can fit it all with two strobes and macro set up in a small rucksack that easily passes for hand luggage on any flight. The dome is a bit bigger but in my opinion worth it having owned both lenses.

 

To further confuse this issue for you, Olympus has announced they will release their own 7-14 zoom which will be a faster F/2.8 lens and the Olympus 8 mm fisheye which will be a much faster F/1.8 lens. Both are to be released in the next six months with 7-14 coming first. No size information has been released other than photos in which both lens appear larger than the Panasonic offerings, so it is not completely clear if current ports will work well with these new lenses.

The Olympus 7-14 mm f2.8 has a outer diameter of approx 80 mm across the sun shader at the front and is therefore not compatible with the Nauticam port system diameter which is approx 73 mm on the inside. A real bummer!

EspenB, read my port in the thread you started regarding this issue.

I now bought the 8mm FE and the 7-14mm.
I also bought the Inon 115 Dome, because I was told, that this dome works with many lenses like the 8mm, the 7-14mm, the 12-50mm.
So I thought this would be a good choice, Glas dome, versatile, different Port Adapters, perfect size for travelling.
Now, after the first quick testshots I am a Little bit disappointet.
With the 8mm it Looks quite good, but I have black edges, lookslike the adaptor is too long.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20470298/20150329-ARU90020.jpg

8mm FE, f8

With the 7-14mm the Corners are very unsharp, also with f16 this does not get really better.
Furthermore straight lines get curved to the Center.
And last the minimum Focus distance seemes to be at about 40 cm.

I think there is something wrong?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20470298/20150329-ARU90207.jpg

7mm f8

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20470298/20150329-ARU90229.jpg

7mm f8
Who can help me?

The Panasonic FE is a great lens underwater. Unfortunately, it looks like the dome port isn't quite wide enough, and because of the lens' properties (not rectilinear), lines will curve. The 7-14mm should focus closer than 40 cm, and closer to 25 cm, according to specifications. On the 7mm photos you posted, what is the problem?

The Problem with the wide angle Pictures ist, that as I mentioned the Minimum Focus distance is more than 40cm. And the biggest Problem is. that the Corners are so soft and blurred, even at f11 and f16. It really does not work.

Does somebody use the Inon 115 Dome with the 7-14 lense an can report something positive?

Just some of the pic from my last dive trip at Tulamben Bali.

Taken with GH4, Nauticam housing, Panasonic 7-14 lens with Nauticam 180mm glass dome. No cropping, but did some color correction at lightroom.

At 7mm f/4.5, you can check the EXIF at flickr

P1070051.jpg by bonadjalins, on Flickr

At 7mm f/8

P1070222.jpg by bonadjalins, on Flickr

I'm quite happy with this configuration corner sharpness wise. More pics at my flickr site https://www.flickr.com/photos/bonadjalins/ most taken at 7mm no cropping.

Hope that helps.

Wow, thx very much!

The photos look much better, especially the F4.5 is great to see!

Not really the cheapest solution, but if it works....

Wow, thx very much!

The photos look much better, especially the F4.5 is great to see!

Not really the cheapest solution, but if it works....

Ah.. apology.. the first pic is actualy at F4

... A talented photographer like Amanda can find a way to make things work to produce publishable images.

Phil, you are so right! Unless you buy some really cheap stuff you cannot go completely wrong with todays u/w-photo equipment. Sometimes I feel that people`s photos would benefit a lot more if the time spent on studying technical specs would be spent on studying composition, creative lightning and things like that. A dull picture with perfect, spot-on sharpness from corner to corner is still a dull picture...

Rugani, what are you going to do with your pictures? Publish them in a coffeetable book or National Geographic? Print them regularly in a very large format? Or -to be honest- mostly look at them on your PC or Mac? Think about it...

Ah, and go for the 7-14mm lens. You will love it, it is just great.

Jock

Rugani, Regarding your 8mm shot where the lens shade shows in the corners I will give you my take on the issue. I had the same problem with a much larger port made by Athena back when I first started shooting with the Olympus E-300 and E-330 cameras with the Olympus 7-14mm zoom for 4/3 (not M43) cameras. All of the dome shades were designed for cameras that use the 3:2 format, as in 35mm or APS-C. Since the 3:2 image is not as tall (0n the short side) as the 4:3 image the hood would show in all four corners of the taller (4:3 aspect ratio) photo. I resolved the issue by shaving off a bit of the hood. I addressed this issue with Athena and they later revised the hood so that is would not vignette with the 4:3 aspect ratio cameras.

Regarding the 7-14 zoom with the same port, One size does not fit all WELL and results will vary greatly depending on the port you use with this lens. I see people shooting macro with ports where the macro lens sits 10 or 12mm back into port to save money and then wonder why they are not getting the amount of magnification they thought they would be getting from their +10 closeup lens.

Inon makes great products and it appears that the 115 dome is an excellent choice for the 8mm but not so much for rectilinear lenses like the 7-14, 12-40, 9-18. I still think the best choices for these lenses are the ZEN 170mm port and the Nauticam 180mm Optical glass ports.

The Hammerhead is the 7-14 zoomed to 20mm at F/6.3 and the cave entrance is at 7mm and F/5.6. This lens has great DOF and I have no problems shooting in a range between around F/4.5 and F/9 all the time with executable corner sharpness. I don't want to get into yet another debate about the corner sharpness of this lens but it is as good or better in that area than any of the rectilinear I have seen tested at the 114 degree angle of view range.

Thank you Phil for your words.

Your Photos also look pretty good. That is what I was thinking that this lens will provide me.

But with the Inon Dome there were just poor results.

I boght the inon Dome because the store recommended it.

Inon also sells it in combination with their gf1 housing.

I now can say, that it absolutely does not work with good results.