Nauticam 180mm/Zen 170mm domes with fisheye lenses

Has anyone used either of these two domes with fisheye lenses on a full frame or APS-C camera? How was the performance and image quality if so?

My understanding is that both these domes are designed for wide angle lenses rather than fisheyes, so the angle of curvature is different -- they're slices from much wider diameter domes. How would this impact their use with fisheye lenses? Am I going to get better image quality with a smaller fully-circular dome like the Nauticam 140mm dome or the Zen 100mm dome?

Use case -- Canon 8-15mm lens w/ or w/o 1.4x teleconverter an a Sony A7RII camera. Potentially the Tokina 10-17 with a Nikon D500 in the future. I'm trying to find a dome that's a good balance in terms of image quality, price and size for travel.

I'm currently using the Nauticam 8.5" dome and I'm happy with the image quality at F8 or narrower (usually shoot around F11). But the size of the dome is a little inconvenient for travel, not to mention that it makes the camera a little too positive at the front (have to counteract by strapping a 1kg weight on a weight belt around the dome port extension). One further advantage I see to the 170mm/180mm domes vs a 140mm or 100mm dome is that they would make shooting over-unders a bit easier.

I've used the Zen 170mm on the Nikon D800 and D810 with the Sigma 15mm f2.8 and Nikon 16mm f2.8.

Both the dome curvature and size are actually an improvement over that of the more circular, smaller ports and you should be able to stop down more than you can currently. You will not be able to shoot at the 8mm end of the 8-15mm as the shade is not removable.

Despite the fisheye producing a "curved" image, the sensor in the camera is still flat!

The bigger the dome and the less curve it has, the "flatter" the virtual image is. Hence is is easier to achieve sharp corners.This effects all lenses but it is often harder to see the difference in fisheye images. I am surprised about your comments on using the 8-15mm with an 8.5" dome. I wonder if the issues are to do with the TC/adaptor? I have used the 8-15mm with small ports on full frame (Canon) cameras and found the results to be good even at larger apertures than those you list.

With cropped sensor cameras, their inherent increased depth of field makes them much better at dealing with curved virtual images.

All the best

Adam

I actually discussed this last year with ZEN for my 8-15 on the 7D2. According to them, using the 170mm is not the recommended perfect solution, but they also said that it actually works pretty well, as the fisheyes are "forgiving". We will see this summer...

I've used the Zen 170mm on the Nikon D800 and D810 with the Sigma 15mm f2.8 and Nikon 16mm f2.8.

 

Both the dome curvature and size are actually an improvement over that of the more circular, smaller ports and you should be able to stop down more than you can currently. You will not be able to shoot at the 8mm end of the 8-15mm as the shade is not removable.

 

Despite the fisheye producing a "curved" image, the sensor in the camera is still flat!

 

The bigger the dome and the less curve it has, the "flatter" the virtual image is. Hence is is easier to achieve sharp corners.This effects all lenses but it is often harder to see the difference in fisheye images. I am surprised about your comments on using the 8-15mm with an 8.5" dome. I wonder if the issues are to do with the TC/adaptor? I have used the 8-15mm with small ports on full frame (Canon) cameras and found the results to be good even at larger apertures than those you list.

 

With cropped sensor cameras, their inherent increased depth of field makes them much better at dealing with curved virtual images.

 

All the best

 

Adam

Thanks for sharing your experience, Adam! So if I understand you correctly, you're able to shoot the Sigma 15mm and Nikon 16mm with the Zen 170mm port and get good results at apertures wider than F8? How wide do you normally shoot? If the results are good at F8, I'd be more than happy -- F5.6 would be icing on the cake..

Regarding my current setup, I'm quite happy with the image quality of the Canon 8-15 + 1.4x TC in the 8.5" dome at F11. See below for an examples, without the Kenko 1.4x TC. It's possible that the corner sharpness would be acceptable at F8 or even F5.6 too -- I haven't really tried it. For my current conditions (tropical water), I can shoot at F11 and 1/250th most of the time without having to push the ISO past 640/800. I don't really notice any noise issues at those ISOs on the A7RII, and the dynamic range difference between ISO 640 and ISO 320 is less than half a stop.

I love the Zen 170mm with the Sigma 15mm FE on my FX camera (D810). I have used it a good bit with the Kenko 1.4x TC and 20mm extension ring as well with great results.

I guess we need to define what is acceptable to you. If you are shooting in clear water with plenty of sunlight, stopping down is less of an issue for sure! I think it is important to stress that it would be incorrect to suggest that the 170mm dome will give you as sharp corners as an 8.5" dome!

I have been known to stop down to f4, but this is rare. Mostly, I try to not go lower than f5.6.

However, my experience is that 170mm dome give very adequate performance with fisheyes

Adam