Canon EF lenses on MFT cameras?

2 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

Just an addition: The Canon 8-15 works at least as good behind the Zen DP170 with 35mm extension as behind the Nauticam 140. WIth the DP170 you also could use a rectilinear lens, as e.g. the Zuiko 8-25mm, in addition. I personally, prefer the 140 (or the 100) domeport, as it is more handsome, but just that you know...

 

Wolfgang

I have doubts about the Nauticam 140mm. It is double the price compared with the 4.33 dome port and at 1.3KG dry is as heavy as my WWL-1. 

Do I need the same n85 to n120 adapter and extension ring to mount the Tokina 10-17? Does the tokina provide a similar FOV of 180 to 85 as well?

I am just thinking cost more than anything else as I can get the Tokina + metabones speed booster for around 500 GBP + 4.33 N120 607 GBP (brand new) although there different versions of the 4.33 I assume it would need the Tokina version. 

5 minutes ago, Blenny84 said:

I have doubts about the Nauticam 140mm. It is double the price compared with the 4.33 dome port and at 1.3KG dry is as heavy as my WWL-1. 

Do I need the same n85 to n120 adapter and extension ring to mount the Tokina 10-17? Does the tokina provide a similar FOV of 180 to 85 as well?

I am just thinking cost more than anything else as I can get the Tokina + metabones speed booster for around 500 GBP + 4.33 N120 607 GBP (brand new) although there different versions of the 4.33 I assume it would need the Tokina version. 

 

 

 

Yes, you need the 34,7mm N85 to N120 adapter for both lenses. With this adapter aand the 0,71x speedbooster you just look into the portchard for Canon EF mount. The 0,71x speedbooster is, however, usually substantially more expensive than the glasless 1x adapter. With the 0,71x speed booster you need extensions of 10mm (a very unpractical extension to mount) for the 140 domeport, 20mm for the DP170 and 20mm for the DP100 (bare N120 versions without any built in extensions; I cannot say about the acrylport as I do not own one)...

FOV of the Tokina with 0,71x booster is 202° (vignetting) - 107°. You can use it also with the glasless 1x adapter and then FOV is 131° - 74°...

Wolfgang

5 hours ago, Blenny84 said:

I have doubts about the Nauticam 140mm. It is double the price compared with the 4.33 dome port and at 1.3KG dry is as heavy as my WWL-1. 

Do I need the same n85 to n120 adapter and extension ring to mount the Tokina 10-17? Does the tokina provide a similar FOV of 180 to 85 as well?

I am just thinking cost more than anything else as I can get the Tokina + metabones speed booster for around 500 GBP + 4.33 N120 607 GBP (brand new) although there different versions of the 4.33 I assume it would need the Tokina version. 

 

 

 

The reason why the Canon 8-15 is a good option for m43 is because you can use it with a glassless adapter,  it's not listed with the 4.33 dome in Canon port charts, but if you can use the Olympus 8mm in the 4.33 dome you could also use the Canon 8-15 in the 4.33 dome.  If you look at the m43 port charts the 4.33" dome needs 3mm more extension than the the 140mm and the glassless adapter is 5mm longer. 

The standard arrangement to use the Canon 8-15 is a 35mm extension with the glassless metabones and the 4.33" dome needs 3mm more extension by the port charts.  I suspect very much you could use it as is as the lens would be 3mm forward in the dome and fisheye lenses seem much less prone to issues with dome placement.  I know if you read back in this thread Wolfgang was disappointed with the quality of the 10-17 compared to 8-15 lens.  If you wanted to get it perfect you could use a 20mm plus 17mm extension for 37mm total and you would be out by 1mm.

14 hours ago, Blenny84 said:

I have doubts about the Nauticam 140mm. It is double the price compared with the 4.33 dome port and at 1.3KG dry is as heavy as my WWL-1. 

Do I need the same n85 to n120 adapter and extension ring to mount the Tokina 10-17? Does the tokina provide a similar FOV of 180 to 85 as well?

I am just thinking cost more than anything else as I can get the Tokina + metabones speed booster for around 500 GBP + 4.33 N120 607 GBP (brand new) although there different versions of the 4.33 I assume it would need the Tokina version. 

 

 

 

For the Tokina you need the 34.7mm N85 to N120 adapter and the Tokina acrylic dome port 4.33  plus the zoom gear for the lens

You don't need to use the 140mm dome which has some benefits because it has antireflection coating but optically you won't see anything in most images

In terms of lenses the canon 8-15mm is a better lens but is much more expensive

the N120 140mm dome is not 1.3 Kg but 630 grams actually not sure where the 1.3 on the specs came from 

15 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

Yes, you need the 34,7mm N85 to N120 adapter for both lenses. With this adapter aand the 0,71x speedbooster you just look into the portchard for Canon EF mount. The 0,71x speedbooster is, however, usually substantially more expensive than the glasless 1x adapter. With the 0,71x speed booster you need extensions of 10mm (a very unpractical extension to mount) for the 140 domeport, 20mm for the DP170 and 20mm for the DP100 (bare N120 versions without any built in extensions; I cannot say about the acrylport as I do not own one)...

FOV of the Tokina with 0,71x booster is 202° (vignetting) - 107°. You can use it also with the glasless 1x adapter and then FOV is 131° - 74°...

 

Wolfgang

Ok I see your point now. Definitely much prefer the FOV the Canon 8-15 gives with the 1x adapter.

Good point on the 'future proof' of the Canon 8-15 if I ever upgrade to a new system. 

1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

For the Tokina you need the 34.7mm N85 to N120 adapter and the Tokina acrylic dome port 4.33  plus the zoom gear for the lens

You don't need to use the 140mm dome which has some benefits because it has antireflection coating but optically you won't see anything in most images

In terms of lenses the canon 8-15mm is a better lens but is much more expensive

the N120 140mm dome is not 1.3 Kg but 630 grams actually not sure where the 1.3 on the specs came from 

Found your article https://interceptor121.com/2019/11/02/fisheye-zoom-for-micro-four-thirds/ 

630gr it's not too bad actually - I was surprised by the 1.45KG of weight shown here https://www.uwvisions.com/ports-gears/ports-domes/18811-n120-140mm-optical-glass-fisheye-port/

So I could literally copy all your gear configuration and replace the 140mm for the acrylic 4.33 https://www.uwvisions.com/ports-gears/ports-domes/18803-n120-4-33-acrylic-fisheye-dome-port/ using the same extension etc?

Also not sure what the difference is but the Viltrox seems much cheaper than the Metabones, is there a major difference in performance?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/VILTROX-Adapter-Olympus-Panasonic-interface/dp/B0771KSWSL

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/metabones-mkiv-smart-adapter-canon-ef-to-micro-four-thirds-1575324/

Did you find the upgrade from GH5 to GH5m2 underwater worth it? May be better for me to stay with the same body and spend the money on the Canon 8-15

Thanks

1 hour ago, Blenny84 said:

Found your article https://interceptor121.com/2019/11/02/fisheye-zoom-for-micro-four-thirds/ 

630gr it's not too bad actually - I was surprised by the 1.45KG of weight shown here https://www.uwvisions.com/ports-gears/ports-domes/18811-n120-140mm-optical-glass-fisheye-port/

So I could literally copy all your gear configuration and replace the 140mm for the acrylic 4.33 https://www.uwvisions.com/ports-gears/ports-domes/18803-n120-4-33-acrylic-fisheye-dome-port/ using the same extension etc?

Also not sure what the difference is but the Viltrox seems much cheaper than the Metabones, is there a major difference in performance?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/VILTROX-Adapter-Olympus-Panasonic-interface/dp/B0771KSWSL

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/metabones-mkiv-smart-adapter-canon-ef-to-micro-four-thirds-1575324/

Did you find the upgrade from GH5 to GH5m2 underwater worth it? May be better for me to stay with the same body and spend the money on the Canon 8-15

Thanks

 

Yes you can replace the 140mm with acrylic there is a recent article but is on full frame

As adapter I do not recommend deviating from Metabones yes  it costs more but you know exactly what you get 

For the GH5M2 it is a nice upgrade for video and for higher ISO photography but underwater you will be mostly at ISO 200 so right there the difference is 1/3 of a stop. I would prioritise the lens

On 3/17/2023 at 11:03 AM, Interceptor121 said:

Yes you can replace the 140mm with acrylic there is a recent article but is on full frame

As adapter I do not recommend deviating from Metabones yes  it costs more but you know exactly what you get 

For the GH5M2 it is a nice upgrade for video and for higher ISO photography but underwater you will be mostly at ISO 200 so right there the difference is 1/3 of a stop. I would prioritise the lens

Ok thanks I will stick to the Metabones then. If any of you is considering selling part of the MFT + Canon 8-15 ports / accessories please let me know. 

On 3/20/2023 at 3:31 AM, Blenny84 said:

Ok thanks I will stick to the Metabones then. If any of you is considering selling part of the MFT + Canon 8-15 ports / accessories please let me know. 

I have moved from the 140mm to the 4.33 for the small win in weight and size, so if you want that it's surplus to me now. Just the minor issue of shipping from New Zealand

2 hours ago, freedivenz said:

I have moved from the 140mm to the 4.33 for the small win in weight and size, so if you want that it's surplus to me now. Just the minor issue of shipping from New Zealand

Thanks, I have already bought the 4.33 dome from someone else. Also went with the smaller one for the size/weight benefits. 

I have an update on adapted fisheye lenses with small domes. I am sure others already found out, but I think it is worth posting and let more people know:

I personally am using now the Canon 8-15 fisheye with another Metabones adapter on Sony A7R5, but my wife, Lisi, continues to use the EM1II and the Tokina 10-17. During our last diving vacation in Egypt (we returned just two days ago), she was using the Tokina behind Zen minidome 100 (N120 version) with 20mm extension (and the 34,7mm N85-N120 adapter) a lot. This combo can be used with the 0.71x speedbooster, where it provides 7.1-12.1mm (usable from 8mm without seeing the shades) and a diagonal FOV of 180°-107°, very similar to the Tokina on APS-C (or the new Nauticam Fisheye conversion port on FF). It also can be used with the glasless 1x adapter, providing the original focal length range and 131°-74°, similar to the WWL/WACP water contact optics on APS-C and FF. Both work without any vignetting and provide very good IQ (I will ask her later for some sample images, but it will last, as she is now busy with homeoffice, catching up the work that accumulated in our three weeks of absence...).

=> Zen 100 minidome, 20mm N120 extension, Tokina 10-17, Metabones 0.71x and 1x adapters and the 34.7mm N85-N120 adapter provide a slim and smart travelling package that provides the full range of WA options (split shots with the 100 minidome are difficult, but not impossible, though). I regard this as a true "killer" combo...

The last week of the recent vacation we were with our Doctor Alex on the Red Sea workshop, where > 20 camera rigs were around, placed in the saloon, and it made me smile several times, when I saw her ridiculously small rig besides the big "whoppers" that had WACPs, or similar adapters, each containing kilograms of optical glass, mounted...

Wolfgang

I have an update on adapted fisheye lenses with small domes. I am sure others already found out, but I think it is worth posting and let more people know:
I personally am using now the Canon 8-15 fisheye with another Metabones adapter on Sony A7R5, but my wife, Lisi, continues to use the EM1II and the Tokina 10-17. During our last diving vacation in Egypt (we returned just two days ago), she was using the Tokina behind Zen minidome 100 (N120 version) with 20mm extension (and the 34,7mm N85-N120 adapter) a lot. This combo can be used with the 0.71x speedbooster, where it provides 7.1-12.1mm (usable from 8mm without seeing the shades) and a diagonal FOV of 180°-107°, very similar to the Tokina on APS-C (or the new Nauticam Fisheye conversion port on FF). It also can be used with the glasless 1x adapter, providing the original focal length range and 131°-74°, similar to the WWL/WACP water contact optics on APS-C and FF. Both work without any vignetting and provide very good IQ (I will ask her later for some sample images, but it will last, as she is now busy with homeoffice, catching up the work that accumulated in our three weeks of absence...).
=> Zen 100 minidome, 20mm N120 extension, Tokina 10-17, Metabones 0.71x and 1x adapters and the 34.7mm N85-N120 adapter provide a slim and smart travelling package that provides the full range of WA options (split shots with the 100 minidome are difficult, but not impossible, though). I regard this as a true "killer" combo...
The last week of the recent vacation we were with our Doctor Alex on the Red Sea workshop, where > 20 camera rigs were around, placed in the saloon, and it made me smile several times, when I saw her ridiculously small rig besides the big "whoppers" that had WACPs, or similar adapters, each containing kilograms of optical glass, mounted...[emoji4]
 
Wolfgang

40 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

For MFT the acrylic 4.33” is probably the best option in terms of size and weight. This is available for both tokina and canon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I, personally, do mot like the plastic domes...

Is it possible to use the Tokina with both 0.71x and 1x adapters with the acryl dome?

I, personally, do mot like the plastic domes...
Is it possible to use the Tokina with both 0.71x and 1x adapters with the acryl dome?

For me (95% freediving), the 4.33 was a significant upgrade. Not only is it more streamlined on its own, but the rig is much closer to neutral - close enough I don't need to add bulky buoyancy arms. I doubt everyone is as worried about drag, but for travel both the lens and the arms are noticeably easier to pack (when I finally get a chance to travel again!). I haven't noticed any image quality degradation, but that's not to say there isn't any - just that I haven't shot test charts in reproduceable conditions. Even if there was, I would keep this setup, as a theoretically great shot that I can't get is worse than a lower quality one that I can. Also, and much more important to me, I enjoy it more