Wider option for A7RII

The fish eyes work fine with the 140mm dome, you can also use the ultra compact little Zen 100mm dome. You would need to get recommendations on the extensions to use probably from Phil as the combination is not listed in Nauticam's port chart, also whether to use a N85 or N120 port. You would probably only want the huge 230mm dome if you were doing lots of over/unders.

 

Based on the Canon port chart the Canon 8-15 needs 20mm more extension than the Tokina 10-17. Based on the Sony N85 port charts the Tokina 10-17 plus metabones needs a 50mm n85-N120 adapter with the metabones, so it follows that the Canon 8-15 would need 20mm more which is a 70mm n85-N120 adapter - I would ask to confirm that. You would also need a recommendation for a zoom gear.

Thank you, Chris! Over/unders are not a top priority for me, so I'll go with the 140.

Everybody,

 

Thoughts on what size dome to pair with the 8-15 on this system? I am told that I have a choice of 140 or 230?

 

Thank you all again,

Hello

I used 140 mm. But if you would like to use it in 8 mm , The cover would be remove.

Reg.

Balazs

Hi, everybody. In case this thread is useful to somebody else, I thought I'd report back. I went with the Canon 8-15 via Metabones and the Zen 100mm port. As several of you stated, this combo worked beautifully. I did not notice any difference in autofocus performance compared to a native lens, which was my main concern with this option. Optically, the Canon looks fantastic to my eye.

Also as expected, over/under shots are a challenge with this setup (I did try, however). Now I'm considering investing in a large-ish dome to try to get into splits. The difference between the 170 mm and the 230 mm is over $1K. My next question is, does the difference between those two justify the price tag?

Thank you all again!

P.S.:HOW DO I POST SOME PICS?

Hi, everybody. In case this thread is useful to somebody else, I thought I'd report back. I went with the Canon 8-15 via Metabones and the Zen 100mm port. As several of you stated, this combo worked beautifully. I did not notice any difference in autofocus performance compared to a native lens, which was my main concern with this option. Optically, the Canon looks fantastic to my eye.

 

Also as expected, over/under shots are a challenge with this setup (I did try, however). Now I'm considering investing in a large-ish dome to try to get into splits. The difference between the 170 mm and the 230 mm is over $1K. My next question is, does the difference between those two justify the price tag?

 

Thank you all again!

 

P.S.:HOW DO I POST SOME PICS?

To post pictures, click on the More Reply Options button then Choose File. Navigate on your system to the image you want and select it. The image will take a few seconds to load and when it appears as a small icon click Attach This File. You can only attach one file at a time but you can attach multiple images before you click Add Reply.

On the 230 dome port, if at all possible, Id suggest you take a physical look at the size of the port before deciding. I moved to a 230 port some years ago and was actually shocked when it arrived at just how big it was - even though only 1 bigger than my Subal DPFE domeport. The 230 ports are huge. I found traveling with it tricky with European baggage allowances.

Agree with Tim - 230mm dome is HUGE. Here's a picture of Nauticam's 230mm dome on the NA-A7II to give you an idea. I've since switched to 180mm.

Thank you! Indeed, I have to think about portability. mt-m, since you have used both the 230 and the 180, do you see a substantial difference to justify the bloated size and price tag? Here are some samples with the 100mm Zen. More forthcoming.

I would go with this 100mm...

Make me feel like getting this canon glass and throw the 16-35 away!! Haaha

Did you try Sony 12-24 ???

About the difference between 230mm and 180mm - at least in Nauticam's case, the radius of the actual glass sphere is very close, I think it's 120mm for 230mm dome and 110mm for the 180mm dome. So the 180 is almost like a smaller cut of the the same sphere. As such, it's really about how wide the lens is and how the dome is positioned. I haven't noticed much if any difference as far as quality is concerned, but I only use 16-35 f4 and 24-70 f4, plus I mostly shoot my kids and sharks/turtles, where the corners are usually just water, so corner sharpness is irrelevant.

This is Sony 24-70 f4 behind the Nauticam 180mm glass dome:

My 5 cent

Benigno as I told you on the boat you did very well considering this was the first trip to the red sea and you had a lot new equipment

Clearly corner sharpness is not the issue for split but merely the size of the dome

I have shot the 230 and is huge with a tokina 10-17 with a 7200 years ago

Since then

1. I don’t shoot splits with fisheye as I dont like the distortion

2. I have used a 6” and 7” port with a rectilinear lens with mft you have seen my splits on facebook and on the boat

Now as you have a full frame split with rectilinear will require huge domes buy only for corner sharpness if you are ok with the zoom fisheye in my opinion zen 170 is fine ok on the boat we had peter with that monstrousity and alex with the custom domes but that’s a whole different game

Considering the quality you get with the 100mm and that 170 is already a good size I would ignore the 230 unless you plan to shoot rectilinear splits

Take care

Massimo

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please Read because some of the information above is a bit incorrect. First the Sony A7 line of housings has an N-100 100mm port mount not N-85 so any comparisons are not valid. Using the Nauticam N100 to N120 35.5mm port adapter allows you to use N-120 ports and in the case of the Canon 8-15mm Fisheye the metabones adapter extends to the edge of the port adapter and then you use the Nauticam Canon port charts to find the extension for the 8-15 zoom. The proper extension for the 8-15 zoom is the N-120 30mm for the 18811 140mm fisheye port with removable shade and 30mm for the Nauticam fisheye port II and 30mm for the ZEN 230mm. Both have dome shades that can be removed for use at the extreme 8mm end of the lens. Be aware a 140mm port is made that does not have the removable shade. Zen also makes a 100mm with and without removable shade. The ZEN DP-100-N120-CR (For removable) would be the proper dome.

The Zen 170mm and Nauticam 180mm ports ARE NOT fisheye ports and DO NOT have removable dome shades, so the 8mm end of the lens would be useless unless you crop out a good deal of the frame.

I have used all three port sizes extensively and as you would expect the larger the port the better the image quality in the corners with apples to apples settings.

I would agree that the 230mm dome is a bitch to travel with but I have managed to keep my carry-on roller bag to under 12kg by putting the housing without grips, lenses and bodies into my "computer" second carry-on bag. The larger upside to the Nauticam/Zen 230mm (I own the ZEN) beyond the obivious over/under upside is that the230mm port can be used with the Sony 12-24 zoom, 16-35 F/2.8 & F/4, Zeiss 18mm and more by using 20mm, 30mm and 40mm extensions.

Please Read because some of the information above is a bit incorrect. First the Sony A7 line of housings has an N-100 100mm port mount not N-85 so any comparisons are not valid. Using the Nauticam N100 to N120 35.5mm port adapter allows you to use N-120 ports and in the case of the Canon 8-15mm Fisheye the metabones adapter extends to the edge of the port adapter and then you use the Nauticam Canon port charts to find the extension for the 8-15 zoom. The proper extension for the 8-15 zoom is the N-120 30mm for the 18811 140mm fisheye port with removable shade and 30mm for the Nauticam fisheye port II and 30mm for the ZEN 230mm. Both have dome shades that can be removed for use at the extreme 8mm end of the lens. Be aware a 140mm port is made that does not have the removable shade. Zen also makes a 100mm with and without removable shade. The ZEN DP-100-N120-CR (For removable) would be the proper dome.

 

 

The Zen 170mm and Nauticam 180mm ports ARE NOT fisheye ports and DO NOT have removable dome shades, so the 8mm end of the lens would be useless unless you crop out a good deal of the frame.

 

I have used all three port sizes extensively and as you would expect the larger the port the better the image quality in the corners with apples to apples settings.

 

I would agree that the 230mm dome is a bitch to travel with but I have managed to keep my carry-on roller bag to under 12kg by putting the housing without grips, lenses and bodies into my "computer" second carry-on bag. The larger upside to the Nauticam/Zen 230mm (I own the ZEN) beyond the obivious over/under upside is that the230mm port can be used with the Sony 12-24 zoom, 16-35 F/2.8 & F/4, Zeiss 18mm and more by using 20mm, 30mm and 40mm extensions.

Phil is the expert on Sony if 170 doesn’t work 140mm is borderline small for splits especially landscape or very still water

Portrait would work

But I would not get a 230 port just for splits you need another reason

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My mistake on current ZEN 170mm domes the dome shade blades are removable. So if you already own that port and can remove the shade blades you would have an advantage for splits. Would not be my choice for any other full frame lens other than fisheye.

My mistake on current ZEN 170mm domes the dome shade blades are removable. So if you already own that port and can remove the shade blades you would have an advantage for splits. Would not be my choice for any other full frame lens other than fisheye.

Lol sometimes Phil is wrong. 170mm is ok for fisheye splits

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you all, as usual, this conversation is very informative and helpful. For the most part, I-m inclined to go with the 170 after the points made above, but the possibility of adding a wide rectilinear option in the future with the 230 sure has some appeal. But can somebody point me in the right direction about the removable shades? The folks at Bluewater tell me that neither the 170 nor the 230 has removable shades, and looking in the Zen website, they don't say one way or the other. I don't see in the pictures the external O-ring that allows for shade removal on the 100mm. Is there a newer model of these and if so, does anybody have a link? Thank you again for everybody's help!

Thanks all for the great thread! I'm trying to do some research myself today and there have been some very useful posts here.

I'm currently using the Zen 100 mm port (removable shade) on the 35.5 mm N100-N120 adapter for a Canon 8-15 mm lens (Metabones V, Sony A7rIII, NA-A7RIII housing). I think I'll need to replace the port – the glass is becoming quite opaque (I'm not great at cleaning it, my bad). 

Anyway, I see on Nauticam's port charts that they're not recommending my current setup, but rather pointing to the 140 mm port as optimal. 

Two things: 

1) Is it okay to use the 140 mm port with the non-removable shade? I've never used the full-circular effect, and find the removable shade on the Zen to be a pain (in fact I've completely taped it in place).

2) With the 35.5 mm adapter I'm already using, do I still need an additional 30 mm extension ring? I'm presuming from Phil's post above that I do, but I live in hope

I understand that larger domes (i.e. new 140 mm > current 100 mm) have better corner sharpness at the same settings; is there any difference otherwise?

Thanks!

Simon.

13 minutes ago, SimonPierce said:

Thanks all for the great thread! I'm trying to do some research myself today and there have been some very useful posts here.

I'm currently using the Zen 100 mm port (removable shade) on the 35.5 mm N100-N120 adapter for a Canon 8-15 mm lens (Metabones V, Sony A7rIII, NA-A7RIII housing). I think I'll need to replace the port – the glass is becoming quite opaque (I'm not great at cleaning it, my bad). 

Anyway, I see on Nauticam's port charts that they're not recommending my current setup, but rather pointing to the 140 mm port as optimal. 

Two things: 

1) Is it okay to use the 140 mm port with the non-removable shade? I've never used the full-circular effect, and find the removable shade on the Zen to be a pain (in fact I've completely taped it in place).

2) With the 35.5 mm adapter I'm already using, do I still need an additional 30 mm extension ring? I'm presuming from Phil's post above that I do, but I live in hope

I understand that larger domes (i.e. new 140 mm > current 100 mm) have better corner sharpness at the same settings; is there any difference otherwise?

Thanks!

Simon.

1. Yes if you are not bothered about circular fisheye images

2. You need a further extension. According to my measurements 25 mm not 30 mm as on the port chart to place the dome in the optimal position. Without extension you will increase the barrel distortion and reduce the field of view