Nauticam CMC-2 Any real life experience?

I have been hanging for years to Inon lenses mostly because no other wet lenses except reefnet have weak diopters

Using a zoom lens in the 14-42mm range on a micro four third means a working distance of around 30 cm at full zoom and jumping on super powerful option like CMC, Inon 67 or 90 or other +10 macro lenses is not very useful for me as I like to leave at least 15 cm in front of the port to allow proper illumination and avoid spooking critters.

I have looked with great interest to the Nauticam CMC-2 but have not found and real useful material to understand how this lens behaves

Magnification of 2.8x means working distance of around 13 cm which for me is too close but I would like to understand if this is true in practice and if anyone shoots video with this lens

For me the CMC-1 is not useful as the working distance is only good for very specific subjects and not a good all rounder

So far I have been using the Inon UCL-165 and I have yet to find a more versatile lens than this one

Haven't tried it, but I was under the impression that the CMC-2 provides greater magnification (and thus less working distance) than the CMC-1?

I personally also use the UCL-165. Partially because I bought it ages ago, and partially because any higher magnification is useless when hand-holding with the 14-42mm lens. At least for video. Maybe a different story when shooting from a tripod, but I also have the Panasonic 45mm macro and Olympus 60mm macro lenses, which I feel are a much better solution for real macro (and super-macro) work than the 14-42 + diopeter route. So why bother with the CMC-2? What hole does it fill?

Haven't tried it, but I was under the impression that the CMC-2 provides greater magnification (and thus less working distance) than the CMC-1?

 

I personally also use the UCL-165. Partially because I bought it ages ago, and partially because any higher magnification is useless when hand-holding with the 14-42mm lens. At least for video. Maybe a different story when shooting from a tripod, but I also have the Panasonic 45mm macro and Olympus 60mm macro lenses, which I feel are a much better solution for real macro (and super-macro) work than the 14-42 + diopeter route. So why bother with the CMC-2? What hole does it fill?

CMC1 is 4.5x CMC 2 is 2.8x

Haven't tried it, but I was under the impression that the CMC-2 provides greater magnification (and thus less working distance) than the CMC-1?

 

I personally also use the UCL-165. Partially because I bought it ages ago, and partially because any higher magnification is useless when hand-holding with the 14-42mm lens. At least for video. Maybe a different story when shooting from a tripod, but I also have the Panasonic 45mm macro and Olympus 60mm macro lenses, which I feel are a much better solution for real macro (and super-macro) work than the 14-42 + diopeter route. So why bother with the CMC-2? What hole does it fill?

I am looking for an alternative to the UCL-165 possibly with better optical quality. I entirely agree with your point that stronger diopter are useless moreover once you activate ex tele you have additional 1.4x crop.

I personally do not like underwater videos shot at fixed focal length with a sequence of small critters so although I have the oly 60mm I never use it for video.

I would like to have something that works within 15-20 cm working distance that doesnt have the fringing of the Inon lens