WWL-1 questions

Even though I have questioned the value of the Nauticam WWL-1 with a M43 system, I am increasingly tempted to try it out on an upcoming trip. In part, the promise of a single-lens that goes from ultra-wide (weitwinkel) to “portrait” is appealing, and in part, because I think it would make packing less challenging.

I also keep hearing that the results of the WWL-1 with a kit zoom, can significantly surpass the 7-14 in a 180 dome.

In large part…I am just curious.

Anyway, for those who have used this wet lens, I have a few questions.

Am I correct in assuming that one needs to remove and remount the lens after submerging in order to insure no air pockets/bubbles between the wet lens and port?

Has anyone had any success using something like a lenscoat cap on the WWL-1 with buoyancy collar? The hard cap is VERY expensive and looks like it would be hard to stow underwater. I am in the habit of removing a lens cover in the water and reinstalling it before handing the camera up to boat crew, and would want to continue doing that.

Is the installation/removal of the buoyancy collar a one-time thing or could it be done at a dive location. I would rather not accommodate what looks like a 180mm foam collar in the case that holds housing, ports, etc.

Thanks. Any other thoughts or input welcome.

I think it shoots pretty well with the Oly 14-42mmEZ and maybe better with the 12-50mm, but I haven't tried it.

No, you shouldn't need to remove it, usually as most ports have "breathing" holes in the sides. They bayonet system makes it pretty easy to deal with.

The buoyancy collar is a bit fussy to put on in that you have to align the long screws and the foam doesn't exactly guide them. I'd probably put it on for the length of the trip rather than each day. It can be a bit brittle, so it needs to be packed carefully where it can't get bent. The hard cap is the way to go and I wouldn't worry about trying to put it off/on in the water for sure. Just maybe add the Nauticam lanyard to make rig handling easier and safer. The glass domes, while expensive aren't as "touchy" as softer acrylic domes which mar easily.

Here's a review I wrote on the 14-42EZ and the WWL on a EP-L 7 camera:

https://www.opticaloceansales.com/olympus-epl-7-with-nauticam-wwl-1-and-cmc-lens-review.html

Kona2-1 by Jack Connick, on Flickr

Hi Jack,

In your review you wrote that the Zuiko 8mm FE with dome (which dome(s)?) gives sharper images compared to the WWL-1 with standard lens. Can you compare the image quality with WWL-1 also to WW lens (Panasonic or Zuiko 7-14 (or 9-18mm))?

Wolfgang

In my opinion the 7-14mm f2.8 is sharper and certainly faster - which is one issue with the 14-42mm EZ or 12-50mm - they're quite a bit slower at f/3.5-f4.5 or f/3.5-f/6.3. The WWL and 7-14mm are sharper than the 9-18mm. But I've gotten good shots with all.

BUT

1) I haven't extensively compared them apples to oranges on the same body as I've shot the 8mm on the E-M1 and both the 8mm and 7-14mm on the E-M1 MKII, but not the WWL set ups.

2) The dome port you choose plays a role - the 140mm dome and 8mm is one of the sharpest, fastest I've used, great for wrecks. I've shot the 7-14mm behind a Zen 170mm dome and it's fine. I can't say it's one of my favorites, as I am kind of an old school prime FE lens kind of guy underwater.

I think the "wet" optics are a good, smaller albeit heavier, option to larger dome ports and expensive zooms. But you have to look at lens speed as well. We've sold lots of a7II/28mm f/2/WWL setups to free divers over in Kona for instance. Small, fast and full frame.

I have more shots of the 7-14mm and 8mm in my review of the E-M1 MKII Nauticam set here:

https://www.opticaloceansales.com/review-nauticam-na-em1mkii-underwater-housing.html

Wolfgang:

I have made no comparisons, obviously, but I think the 8mm FE in the appropriate dome would provide the sharpest corner-corner image, followed by the WWL or the 12-40 Zuiko in an appropriate dome. The 7-14 is a very good lens and the corner sharpness issues are simply issues of using ultrawide (weitwinkel) rectilinear lenses in a dome. The problem isn’t the lens, it is the physics of the thing.

That can be dealt with to varying degrees by choosing the subject and background and by stopping down the lens, but the problem isn’t going to go away.

The WWL and the new WACP for full format use a different approach and seem able to produce better edges because of how they operate. I am not very technical so I don’t fully understand and won’t even try to explain the science. Beyond that, a selling point of the WWL is the ability to offer a one-lens-does-it-all kind of thing. On a 12-50 or 14-42 you have everything but macro covered and a simple add-on close up lens can add that ability. I think the way to approach this is not to look for the “best,” but to identify what you want to accomplish and see which option fits that. Really, to me, the WWL is another tool or choice. It doesn’t replace the traditional wide zoom and dome, but offers an alternative that is superior in some situations.

If you have the 7-14 in a dome and the edges are a problem in the types of shots you want to take, it sounds like the WWL may be a better choice. Since I often shoot between f5.6 and f8, the speed of a kit zoom isn’t much of a concern, but if you want to be able to shoot exiting light shots, the slow lens could be a hindrance. Again, there is no single best choice.

All the above is based on what I have read…as of right now, I have never used the WWL. This thread has some comparison between the 7-14 and the WWL, see the second page for a link to some comparison photos:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=56440

I've shot the WWL-1 with the 12-50 in the macro port, and with the 14-42EZ in a shorter port, both with the bayonet fitting and a NA-EM10.

At 12mm the 12-50 vignettes with the WWL-1; I needed to stop down to 15-16mm. No vignetting with the 14-42 at 14. Probably the difference is due to the ports.

No noticeable difference in edge sharpness.

I use a CMC-1 or the WWL-1, with bayonets, and store the one (or both) I'm not using on bayonet docks on my arms. The CMC-1 stores in a dock on the clamp between two arms; the WWL-1 stores in a dock on my buoyancy arm closest to the camera.

I take the rigid cap off the WWL-1 and the rubber cap off the CMC-1 when I go in the water, and hand them to the guy on the boat. For shore dives, they stay on shore.

The WWL-1 stays in its buoyancy collar, and is stowed in the WWL-1 case that way; just take out the fitted insert.

Thank you all for your input. I remain on the fence about whether a WWL-1 offers much benefit. I have seen some reports that results of the WWL-1 and 14-42 lens are noticeably superior to the 7-14 in a dome and on a par with the 12-40 in a dome, but others say maybe not so much. I don't really care about lens speed too much, since I usually shoot around f 6.3 and smaller anyway. It looks like once the buoyancy collar is added to the WWL-1 it is not any smaller than the 180 dome, so packing might not be simplified.

I would not anticipate using the WWL-1 as a removable lens to switch with a CMC underwater. It would stay on during any particular dive, although I suppose I could also take a CMC on a dive trip where macro was anticipated, and thereby omit the 60mm and flat port.

I am still tempted, with the idea that I could save packing space by substituting the 14-42 and wwl-1 for the 7-14, 12-40, a couple of adapters, if indeed, the quality of output would not suffer. If anticipating split shots I would still likely choose the 180 dome, and would still take the 8mm Zuiko and 100mm dome and probably the 60mm in a flat port where macro was likely, unless the CMC on a 14-42 would replace it.

Thank you all for your input. I remain on the fence about whether a WWL-1 offers much benefit. I have seen some reports that results of the WWL-1 and 14-42 lens are noticeably superior to the 7-14 in a dome and on a par with the 12-40 in a dome, but others say maybe not so much. I don't really care about lens speed too much, since I usually shoot around f 6.3 and smaller anyway. It looks like once the buoyancy collar is added to the WWL-1 it is not any smaller than the 180 dome, so packing might not be simplified.

 

I would not anticipate using the WWL-1 as a removable lens to switch with a CMC underwater. It would stay on during any particular dive, although I suppose I could also take a CMC on a dive trip where macro was anticipated, and thereby omit the 60mm and flat port.

 

I am still tempted, with the idea that I could save packing space by substituting the 14-42 and wwl-1 for the 7-14, 12-40, a couple of adapters, if indeed, the quality of output would not suffer. If anticipating split shots I would still likely choose the 180 dome, and would still take the 8mm Zuiko and 100mm dome and probably the 60mm in a flat port where macro was likely, unless the CMC on a 14-42 would replace it.

The CMC on a 14-42 has a very short working distance; the 60mm in a flat port is much superior for that.

The WWL-1 stays in its buoyancy collar, and is stowed in the WWL-1 case that way; just take out the fitted insert.

I had not thought of removing the fitted insert for use with the buoyancy collar! Nice!

One comment from me in regards to the hard cap. I got a pack of GoPro knock off tethers

and stuck one on the front of the cap and fitted a spilt ring to that and then a double ender so can take on the dive and know when I had the camera to the boat guy the lens is protected.

This thread is really interesting to me since I'm considering buying the Oly EM5 mkII bundle with the Oly housing to use with a WWL. I do realize that the Oly port isn't threaded. What I was planning on doing is buying either the AOI FLP04 flat port to use with the 14-42EZ or the 12-50 with the FLP02 and the WWL and CMC. Jack, your blog post about the Oly EPL-7 and the WWL and CMC is part of what has me thinking that I might be able to do this on a bit of a tighter budget than going out and dropping several thousand on a Nauticam housing. Since the Oly bundle is only $1299. including the camera, 14-42 II, zoom gear, and housing, my cash outlay is a lot less since I already own the WWL and bayonet mounting system.

So, I was wondering if there might be an advantage to using the 14-42EZ over the 12-50 with the vignetting issues mentioned earlier. Is there much of a difference in image quality between the two optics or is it negligible? Anyone try this or think it might work?

Very interested in this thread as well.