Olympus 7-14 mm f2.8 will not fit in Nauticam housings

Will the nauticam 180mm dome handle the 12-40 well? Looking for a single port solution for both the 7-14 and 12-40. I can very easily get Nauticam stuff in Thailand, Zen will be more painful. With a single solution, I can pack the big dome, and the smaller 60mm macro port as well as the 4.33" mini dome for the 8mm pana fisheye, and have a semi not outrageous transportable baggage. I will have finally also completed all my camera needs... unless the oly fisheye is upgrade worthy.

How do full frame people lug all that kit around?

I resolved this problem with the 35 macro port and 30 extension plus 6" wide angle port and 4.33"dome. I use the Panasonic 14-42mm II in the macro 35 port. I find the lens pretty useful in the 28-42 range for medium size fish portraits. 12-14mm is covered by the 7-14mm and I don't find much use for the 14-28mm zoom range. It's too wide for portrait work and too narrow for sharks and similar. A lens with 12-40mm seems a good choice on land but am unsure of the real usability behind a dome port in water.

Each of us has different goals and interests but I really enjoy using the 12-40 underwater. I can get very close with it and at 40mm use it as a sort of semi-macro (or at least close focus) lens for small but not really tiny items and I use it for fish portraits and moderate wide angle shots like reef structures, fish schools and so on. I also like that it is quite fast to focus. I used to sometimes take a 14-45 underwater, but it was never quite wide enough. That extra 2mm on the wide end of the 12-40 makes a big difference to me. My current Zen dome will accept both the 7-14 Panasonic and 12-40 and I also take the 8mm FE Panasonic and a small dome on most trips. Those three lenses cover everything I might need on a typical dive trip, but I am not much of a macro shooter. I also have the 45 and 60 macro lenses and when I anticipate doing more macro on a dive trip, I can substitute one of those for one of the other lenses, or if I am not facing huge space restrictions, I can add the lens and port in my carry-on bags.

I will probably switch to the new 8mm and 7-14 lenses and switch out domes when the lenses are actually available to me and the dust settles on the ports and gears. One of the real upsides to the micro four thirds equipment is that I can fit my housing, focus light, strobes, all the ports, gears, lenses and camera in my carry on bags, and that makes travel more relaxed.

There are so many more lens and port choices now compared to when I started using a GF-1 underwater...it's like being a kid in a candy store.

so it is not possible, to use the Oly 7-14mm and the Oly fisheye in with the same port?

Nope. The same deal as for the Pana 7-14 and 8 mm fisheye.

What a pity!

I hoped, that one Port is possible!

another reason to get a Subal-Combo with the Subal DP-100 dome port for the Pana Lenses.

What do you think about this configuration?

What a pity!

I hoped, that one Port is possible!

 

another reason to get a Subal-Combo with the Subal DP-100 dome port for the Pana Lenses.

What do you think about this configuration?

why is one Port not an option?

or you just mean, that the DP-100 (4") is too small?

why is one Port not an option?

or you just mean, that the DP-100 (4") is too small?

You need the dome corresponding to the wide angle port. Say that the port is 170mm that is a section of a 230mm glass but you can't use the 170 as the fisheye would vignette so you need 230mm

If there was a compelling option it would be on the chart but not many people want to g around with such big dome port

But Subal states on its website, that the 7-14mm fits in the 4"-Port?!

Fits doesn't mean it performs well. Also I like the wording at the end of the page errors expected! Lol

While I can't speak specifically for the Olympus fisheye I did try my Panasonic 8mm fisheye in my 180mm dome set up for my 12-40mm lens on EM5 in Nauticam.

I believe that the new Olympus fisheye is longer than the Panasonic but that probably wouldn't make much difference. I removed the 20mm extension ring and mounted the 180mm dome directly to the n85 to n120 adapter and the lens was so far back from the glass dome that I ended up with the porthole look to the image. The majority of the image was the black inside of the n85 to m120 adapter and dome port leaving only a small round image through the glass dome.

Given the reported diameter of the new Olympus fisheye I don't think it would work with the n85 to n120 adapter I have as it does not have an external lock.

The size of the 180mm dome port also creates some strobe placement issues if you are trying close-focus wide angle shots (CFWA) where the subject is tight to the dome.

Truthfully I love the compact size of the 4.33" dome for CFWA but was hoping to try some over-under shots with the fisheye AND the bigger glass dome. The 4.33" acrylic dome plus wave action makes over-under very difficult with the fisheye, let alone strobes burning the corners of the images in my local plankton / sediment filled waters...

Regards,

Adam

 

 

Given the reported diameter of the new Olympus fisheye I don't think it would work with the n85 to n120 adapter I have as it does not have an external lock.

 

 

The diameter of the Oly 8 mm fisheye is not problematic for the N85 port system, only the Olympus 7-14 mm lens is.

Hi

Do you think that the 8mm Olympus fisheye will fit in the Zen DP-170-N85 first version . That would mean that the 7-14 Pana , 12-50 Oly and some others could be usable with the dome and a 30 mm extension? One dome only But I'm afraid that the 8 mm should undergo a little vignetting with the dome

Thank

Nauticam should simply make a Adaptor for the Olympus PPO-EP02 Glass Dome if its Possible

I've published a Port Configuration Guide on our blog that has all of the various possible combinations for Nauticam and Olympus housings with Zen, Nauticam and Olympus ports, extensions and gears.

There's a lot of different configurations. Right now, there's not a one size-fits-all like with DSLRs. The optics on m4/3rds lenses and the large physical size of the Olys make it hard. But I think given some time the manufacturers will do the best they can to work towards that goal.

Having shot the 8mm with the small Oly dome, I'd really like to try in with a larger 170mm dome and see how much less edge distortion it has.

Thank you Jack , we had already two answers from Zen about the DP-170-N85 first version , that have been published on our board in France :

Sure thing, the DP-170-N85 works with the following lenses:

- Panasonic 7-14mm f/4 plus 30mm extension
- Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 plus 30mm extension
- Olympus M.Zuiko 12mm
- Olympus M.Zuiko 8mm f/1.8 PRO
- Olympus 9-18mm f/4-5.6 plus 30mm extension

Thank you for contacting us! Unfortunately, you cannot use the 12-40mm or the 12-50mm with the first version on the DP-170-N85. The reason is the the diameter of the lens is too large to pass through the Nauticam Mini Extension Rings. The DP-170-N85II actually has a larger inner diameter around the port base to allow the fatter lenses to pass through. The 12-50mm zoom gear is also too large in diameter to pass through the mini extension rings from Nauticam.

That's correct, there is no vignetting with the Olympus M.Zuiko 8mm PRO lens and the DP-170-N85, even in the raw files. The corners are what you can expect from a fisheye lens, still soft, but very manageable when shooting the right subject.

Did anybody test what minimum aperture value for MZD 7-14 is sufficient to get corners sharp enough?

I think that depends on dome size but for Lumix 7-14 with nauti dome 7’’ I have to use f/8 @7mm.

According Nauticam chart, the 6" dome port only fit for Panny 7-14mm. I check the dimension of Panny 7-14mm is 2.76 x 3.27" almost similar (slightly larger) than Olympus 8mm fisheye (2.44 x 3.15").​

has anybody tried this configuration?