Which lens/dome for m4/3

Hi, I currently own an Olympus EM1 mk. 2 in a Nauticam housing. Though I already decided on the macro port, I am still unsure about the wide angle option.

Currently I own an Olympus 7.14 2.8, which is great, but also the dome which I should buy is roughly 1200 + 400 for the extension ring, so definitely expensive.

So I am looking at other alternatives, one of which is the Pana 8mm with either the 3.5 or the 4.33 dome. I would like to do CFWA with it, and also wide shot. Would still be a good option?

Otherwise, though more expensive, I might also get a look at the Pana 7-14, with the 6" dome, which sells for roughly 500 eur, plus the lens. However, selling my 7-14 would quite match the price for this combination. Would I be able to do CFWA with this setup?

I do not consider the 9-18 an option.

I also have the 12-40, but wouldn't mind housing it, as it wouldn't be wide enough.

Opinions?

CFWA needs fisheye. I use the Pana 8mm with the 4.33" dome and works well

Some people have the 3.5 semi dome that I had but other than wide angle macro it was not useful for me and has a reduced field of view compared to the 4.33 and slightly worse image quality

Rectilinear lenses for CFWA not a good idea

If you are careful with choice of dome you can house the 7-14 and 12-40mm in the same dome - the 12-40 is a nice lens for fish portaits smaller schools of fish and the medium sized creatures particularly in less then perfect water. This is a sample with the 12-40: http://aus-natural.com/Underwater/Bony%20Fish/slides/Old%20Wives%2018.html

Whether or not the 12-40 is of interest depends on where you are diving, much of my diving is in temperate waters around Sydney. If you are wanting to do CFWA in tropical waters the Panasonic 8mm f3.5 plus a small dome is a reasonable choice but will cost about as much if you have to buy the lens plus the dome. It gives nice results with the EM1 - MkII. I use it with the Zen 100mm dome - This is a sample from Halmahera Indonesia: http://aus-natural.com/Underwater/Weda%20Resort%20Halmahera/slides/Lolou%20Reef%20Top%203.html

You can get either the Zen or Nauticam 170 or 180mm dome with extenders and use it with the 12-40, 7-14 and also the Oly f1.8 fisheye with different extenders. Though the 170mm dome is not ideal for CFWA.

CFWA needs fisheye. I use the Pana 8mm with the 4.33" dome and works well

 

Some people have the 3.5 semi dome that I had but other than wide angle macro it was not useful for me and has a reduced field of view compared to the 4.33 and slightly worse image quality

 

Rectilinear lenses for CFWA not a good idea

Inviato dal mio ELE-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk

If you are careful with choice of dome you can house the 7-14 and 12-40mm in the same dome - the 12-40 is a nice lens for fish portaits smaller schools of fish and the medium sized creatures particularly in less then perfect water. This is a sample with the 12-40: http://aus-natural.com/Underwater/Bony%20Fish/slides/Old%20Wives%2018.html

 

Whether or not the 12-40 is of interest depends on where you are diving, much of my diving is in temperate waters around Sydney. If you are wanting to do CFWA in tropical waters the Panasonic 8mm f3.5 plus a small dome is a reasonable choice but will cost about as much if you have to buy the lens plus the dome. It gives nice results with the EM1 - MkII. I use it with the Zen 100mm dome - This is a sample from Halmahera Indonesia: http://aus-natural.com/Underwater/Weda%20Resort%20Halmahera/slides/Lolou%20Reef%20Top%203.html

 

You can get either the Zen or Nauticam 170 or 180mm dome with extenders and use it with the 12-40, 7-14 and also the Oly f1.8 fisheye with different extenders. Though the 170mm dome is not ideal for CFWA.

I fear the 12-40 would not be wide enough.

Inviato dal mio ELE-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk

Yes fisheye for CFWA is a must. Are you able to do CFWA with the 4.33 dome or is it too wide?

 

Inviato dal mio ELE-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk

Too wide for what? The 4.33 dome is the best optic for the pana 8mm I have never had the situation where a subject would not fit the frame

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Too wide for what? The 4.33 dome is the best optic for the pana 8mm I have never had the situation where a subject would not fit the frame

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Inviato dal mio ELE-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk

I mean too big, you can't make CFWA with larger domes, so I am asking if that is the case with the 4.33.

 

Inviato dal mio ELE-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk

You are confusing wide angle macro where you nearly touch the subject with cfwa. Cfwa is around 1 foot from you

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are confusing wide angle macro where you nearly touch the subject with cfwa. Cfwa is around 1 foot from you

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Inviato dal mio ELE-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk

Ok, wide angle macro then.

 

Inviato dal mio ELE-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk

That is a small minority of situations while cfwa is most of your shots

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is a small minority of situations while cfwa is most of your shots

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Inviato dal mio ELE-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk

I know, my question is if that is possible with the 4.33 dome.

 

Inviato dal mio ELE-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk

Yes everything is possible if you know how key issue is lighting

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes everything is possible if you know how key issue is lighting

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Inviato dal mio ELE-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk

4.33 is small with respect to the 3.5cm you gain a couple of cm max there is an old thread from alex mustard here if you look

The 3.5" also vignettes in 4:3 aspect with some cameras but works in 3:2

Nauticam recommended port for the 8mm is the 140mm glass port which is bigger than the 4.33 and the 3.5m. This port is made of glass and coated internally so it does not have reflection issues that might occur in some cases when shooting against the light (I have had a 0.5% occurrence) This is of course 3cm longer than the 4.33 and 5cm longer than the 3.5 so possibly the worst option for close work but has the best optical quality

The difference between the 3.5 and 4.33 is 2cm this only makes a difference for very specific shots. The 3.5 is not positioned well compared to the lens nodal point and the surface is flatter this means the lens looses field of view and corner sharpness is worse

Having said that there are plenty of people that use only the 3.5" and are happy with it. I prefer to have mode field of view as for me large fish schools are a priority compared to a single frogfish to give an idea but I had both ports. Due to lack of use of the 3.5 I sold it

in terms of glass vs acrylic glass scratches less but once damaged goes in the bin acrylic can be repaired on the field

Nauticam recommended port for the 8mm is the 140mm glass port which is bigger than the 4.33 and the 3.5m. This port is made of glass and coated internally so it does not have reflection issues that might occur in some cases when shooting against the light (I have had a 0.5% occurrence) This is of course 3cm longer than the 4.33 and 5cm longer than the 3.5 so possibly the worst option for close work but has the best optical quality

The difference between the 3.5 and 4.33 is 2cm this only makes a difference for very specific shots. The 3.5 is not positioned well compared to the lens nodal point and the surface is flatter this means the lens looses field of view and corner sharpness is worse

 

Having said that there are plenty of people that use only the 3.5" and are happy with it. I prefer to have mode field of view as for me large fish schools are a priority compared to a single frogfish to give an idea but I had both ports. Due to lack of use of the 3.5 I sold it

 

in terms of glass vs acrylic glass scratches less but once damaged goes in the bin acrylic can be repaired on the field

Inviato dal mio ELE-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk