Introducing Nauticam’s WACP - The Wide Angle Corrector Port: Discuss Here

@Ryan: "At any given field of view WACP (with a compatible lens) will be sharper in the corners than any lens behind a dome resulting in the same FOV at the same aperture."

 

Is this true for rectilinear WA lenses only - or is this also the case for fisheye lenses?

 

 

Wolfgang

Hi Wolfgang - that is an interesting point of clarification, and something worth testing. Thinking from the full frame perspective I didn't see a direct FOV equivalency, but on DX a 15mm or so fisheye is roughly equivalent to the 18-19mm lenses with WACP.

I'll see if we can test that in the lab.

Hi Ryan

Thanks for the replies.

I saw somewhere someone using the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens on C200 with a WACP. Would this give more versatility (in terms of angle of cover) using a S35mm (DX) type sensor or would you still recommend the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM for S35 format.

Also is the front element of the WACP replaceable by a Nauticam service center like Reef (or would it require sending back to Nauticam HQ if it got scratched) and what would the cost be to replace that element.

Hi Alex,

I've been checking the images you linked, which are very nice as always, and I've seen than in most of them you are using high F/stops. The image quality is very good even in the corners but I am wondering what happens when you use open f/stops.

I've been checking some images by Todd Winner (at Nauticam's website), and even at low res you can see that at F5,6 the corners are not good. If this is the case I think is a very expensive investment if you must use a very old lens behind, which has slow autofocus and you are bound to use closed f/stops. So the only real avantage would be a bigger zoom range than with any other lens... Am I right?

There are more example shots from WACP on my website now - to show how it can be used. I have over 100 up there now, they are sorted chronologically, so newest are first:

 

http://www.amustard.com/library/page/search/%2228.0%22/

 

If the link does not work - search for: 28.0

which brings up pictures taken with 28mm lenses (or 28-70mm) which is covers my use of the WACP.

 

Currently away shooting in the Indian Ocean - and expected to use the lens a lot (although it will be a while before I process, keyword and caption the best shots from this trip to add to my website).

 

Alex

Hey Jordi,

f/5.6 is not going to be as sharp as f/11 or any high f stop but it is sharper than a dome at the same f stop and same FOV. That image in the cave is a bad example as I shot it with a slow shutter speed and probably introduced some camera movement. Overall I find it to be much sharper in the corners than a dome and the zoom range is pretty incredible.

Todd

Since I am also coming from the DX (Nikon D500) shooting camp, I am curious if the WCAP will work with the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED Lens. The lens features a comparable 35mm focal length equivalent of a 27 - 52.5 mm on DX format camera.

Physical dimensions of the lens run approx. 3.27” in diameter x 3.74" long (83 x 95 mm), which do not change when the zoom is racked out to 35mm like it does with the Nikon’s 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G. The lens takes a 77mm filter, but I don’t quite understand what the issue is there where Ryan Canon mentioned it his post.

Walt

Hi Alex,

 

I've been checking the images you linked, which are very nice as always, and I've seen than in most of them you are using high F/stops. The image quality is very good even in the corners but I am wondering what happens when you use open f/stops.

I've been checking some images by Todd Winner (at Nauticam's website), and even at low res you can see that at F5,6 the corners are not good. If this is the case I think is a very expensive investment if you must use a very old lens behind, which has slow autofocus and you are bound to use closed f/stops. So the only real avantage would be a bigger zoom range than with any other lens... Am I right?

 

 

Hi Jordi,

The main reason for the higher apertures in many of my shots is photographic.

I guess it comes down to the fact I am using the lens now, not testing it, so I am selecting apertures based on what is appropriate, rather than what would test the ability of the lens. Most of the images I have shot recently are in bright, shallow conditions and I am close to the subjects (so I have lots of flash). The small size of the WACP is advantageous in such situations compared with a big dome. Also when I am close focusing on a subject (such as the turtles) I needed to use a small aperture (not for corner sharpness, but for adequate depth of field). This is something that you need to consider with both the WACP and the RS-13mm.

Also, after last summer I returned the WACP to Nauticam and I am waiting for my own one to be ready (I just heard that it is). Since I still had an pre-production prototype of the WACP at home (much smaller and not as good as the final WACP, but still better than a dome port) I used that lens in Mexico, Florida and have it with me on my current trip. If the official WACP is 2-3 stops ahead of a dome, the prototype is about 1.5 stops (both have the same field of view). So I would use my more recent images as a guide to the types of shots that the WACP, rather than a measure of quality - as the production WACP is better.

Finally, although the 28-70mm f/3.5-f/4.5 is an old lens - it is a sharp one. Also it is actually has a faster aperture than the 16-35mm, which is f/4 (although it isn't AF-S). For wide angle subjects I don't find the AF a limitation.

Alex

Thanks a lot Todd and Alex for your answer!

I'd really appreciate if you can post any picture at F5,6 or lower when you have the final WACP Unit.

Thanks a lot for your help

Jordi

Have Nauticam come out with a Newer Compatibility Chart with Zoom and Focus Gear part numbers for Nauticam's Cinema Housings If so please can you put up a link.

I am also looking for any Pool Chart Tests for this optic.

Thanks

@AlexMustard: thanks for the wonderful detailed WACP review. I have a doubt that I was hoping you could help. I know it's an apple to oranges comparison but what's the resolution difference between a fisheye lens (the Nikon 8-15 @15mm for example) in a 230mm dome and the WACP?

I don’t know. I guess it might be interesting to have the numbers of all lenses - fisheye to macro to know what we are used to having underwater. But generating these numbers takes a lot of work and I am not sure that it will happen. Alex

@AlexMustard: I thought you had an idea. Not necessarily scientific data like resolution in lpm but a general idea like the quality is the same or one has a 1 stop advantage over the other. Maybe Nauticam has the data and will share it someday - the WACP is a very high investment specially for someone who has a 230mm dome and fisheye lenses and the Nikon 16-35 already (many of us have, me included).

As a feeling - the 8-15mm is the best non-water contact fisheye you can use on a Nikon - it is noticeably sharper than other fisheyes.

But it is not as good as the RS 13mm fisheye or WACP. But of course, the images are totally useable for any application.

I was processing some recent shots of the Kittiwake wreck the other day and I noticed that the image quality wasn’t as nice as usual (most obvious as Chromatic Aberrations) and then I remembered that I had used the 8-15mm that day, rather that the RS13 or WACP I normally use for my wide angle. But of course the images are still very nice. It is a small difference - but when you know how it can be, you do notice it every time!

But the main reason for using the WACP is that it has a totally different angle of coverage than the 8-15mm. The 8-15mm is 180˚ corner to corner @ 15mm. The WACP covers 130˚-57˚ corner to corner with the 28-70mm - making it a super versatile option. But I still always travel with a fisheye too - for shooting the biggest subjects (wrecks, scenery, very big animals, etc). I take the RS13mm when splits are not important and the 8-15mm when I expect to shoot some splits or want to use the 16-35mm too (they use the same dome).

Alex

 

But the main reason for using the WACP is that it has a totally different angle of coverage than the 8-15mm. The 8-15mm is 180˚ corner to corner @ 15mm. The WACP covers 130˚-57˚ corner to corner with the 28-70mm - making it a super versatile option. But I still always travel with a fisheye too - for shooting the biggest subjects (wrecks, scenery, very big animals, etc). I take the RS13mm when splits are not important and the 8-15mm when I expect to shoot some splits or want to use the 16-35mm too (they use the same dome).

 

Alex

Which dome are you using, Alex? A DP230?? With a 20mm EXR for the 8-15mm?

Any idea if the Nikon 28-85mm lens would be any good?

Those of you who have used the WACP -- do you find that it's significantly more prone to flare than fisheye/wide-angle solutions inside a dome port?

I ask because I've been using the WWL-1 a lot recently with the Olympus 14-42mm EZ and Panasonic 15mm F1.7 lenses and I've been noticing an unacceptable amount of flare with that combination as soon as the sun gets anywhere near the frame. So I'm curious if it's a problem with all wet wide angle adapters when compared to native lens+dome port solutions.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about -- check out the lower right corner.

Nauticam's WACP has been out for a year now. Other than the initial test shots, I have not seen any feedback or pictures from users. I am interested in going this route but with the high cost I would really like to hear from others that are using the WACP. Anybody out there that can give more feedback?

^^I'm not sure how to reply with the quote thing but to landlocked, Alex did a big review on it that is somewhere on wetpixel. if you google his name + nauticam wacp it will come up. I've used it a few times and it is one hell of an optic. It is razor sharp at any focal length, you can shoot it at much wider apertures than normal rectilinears (or even fisheyes) and the ability to use the 28-70mm gives unmatched versatility. It also balances extremely well in the water and is so easy to dive with.

It is definitely an investment, but is worth it IMO. I shoot the RS13mm which is an amazing lens and I was skeptical the wacp would match it in terms of sharpness and IQ but to my eye it definitely does and I'd love to complement the 13mm with the wacp but unfortunately I just can't afford to haha.

Almost all the shots I have with it are on external drives but I can post them later. Here is one meh shot but with a 100% crop also so you can get an idea of how insanely sharp it is. (athought wetpixel is crushing the quality, not sure I can do anything about that?)

Nikon D4, Nikon 28-70

Thanks Matt ! I appreciate hearing about your experience with the WACP. I have read every review I could find including the great review by Alex. I was hoping that after the production models became available that we would see and hear a bit more about the results people were getting with the WACP.

I suspect that, at $4000, they aren't exactly flying off the shelves, and it may take a while before there are enough of them out there to encourage active discussions. Not criticizing the price, mind you, just commenting that this is a pretty expensive item.

Of course, maybe I am wrong and they are selling like hotcakes; I wouldn't really know.

If I didn't have a bunch of the stuff already, id go WACP I think. Nikon FX body...

WACP + 28-70 + zoom gear + ext ring 35 = $4600

vs

230mm dome + 16-35 + Ext Ring + Zoom gear = 3600ish, 3900 or so with 250mm dome.

edited to add ext ring 35 for wacp..eek!