For GH5: Pana14-42/WWL-1 or Pana30/MWL-1 for wide and macro? Add CMC1?

well,  with the new WWL-C from Nauticam ...

https://www.nauticam.com/products/wet-wide-lens-compact-wwl-c-130-deg-fov-with-compatible-24mm-lenses

...  a lighter cheaper and shorter option with the 12-32 or 14-42 zooms from Panasonic may make the choice easier now.

Not much feedback yet but with it you have a lot of flexibility:

1) 130° to 120° FOV and you can zoom to get closer to shy animals 

2) disengage the bayonet mount a pluck in a CMC lens and you get reasonable close-ups!!

Both Pana Lenses have great quality if the WWL-C is the expected quality should be a nice combo!!!.   I guess you should be able to put it in a pocket if you need to swap wet lenses.  Good job Nauticam!

However I could not live without the 8mm FE lens and the 60mm macro!

Some posts on the WWL-C here:  https://www.scubaboard.com/community/threads/lx15-nauticam-wwl-c-shots.599991/page-2 

it has links back to a post on WP as well.  It's a large heavy piece of glass and conclusion is swapping it over UW is nerve racking there's no way to tether it and it's quite heavy UW even with buoyancy collar. 

I have seen this lens being used. I has a flat wide shape with an integrated collar in reality it is quite heavy too I think the weight difference in air is 200 grams compared to the original WWL-1

The IQ is not the same and Nauticam markets this wet lens for compacts. I would probably use it as slightly cheaper option on a cheaper MFT camera but the 12-32mm and the oly 12-50 are not attractive options for me anyway considering also a 20% reduction in cost is not like half price

The 14-42mm with WWL-1 remains the best option for the GH5 in my view.

The weight UW and its form factor to me make the WWL-C more desirable than the WWL-1.   170 grams UW is not bad (450 grams less than wwl-1!) and it is 2 cm shorter.  I am not sure why you say the the quality is not as good have you tried with the m43 mirrorless options?  I saw somewhere a test with the Sony 16-50mm lens (worse lens than the 12-32mm or 14-42mm lenses) which describes it at least as good as the WWL-1.  

19 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

I have seen this lens being used. I has a flat wide shape with an integrated collar in reality it is quite heavy too I think the weight difference in air is 200 grams compared to the original WWL-1

The IQ is not the same and Nauticam markets this wet lens for compacts. I would probably use it as slightly cheaper option on a cheaper MFT camera but the 12-32mm and the oly 12-50 are not attractive options for me anyway considering also a 20% reduction in cost is not like half price

The 14-42mm with WWL-1 remains the best option for the GH5 in my view.

The weight UW and its form factor to me make the WWL-C more desirable than the WWL-1.   170 grams UW is not bad (450 grams less than wwl-1!) and it is 2 cm shorter.  I am not sure why you say the the quality is not as good have you tried with the m43 mirrorless options?  I saw somewhere a test with the Sony 16-50mm lens (worse lens than the 12-32mm or 14-42mm lenses) which describes it at least as good as the WWL-1.  
 

7 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

That’s because you have a buoyancy collar once you put on the wwl1 is 160 grams
And the lens is softer not suitable if you want the highest quality


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting.  Maybe you are right but I will wait for some tests on mirrorless...  It is still a big investment either way. 

28 minutes ago, nudibranco said:

Interesting.  Maybe you are right but I will wait for some tests on mirrorless...  It is still a big investment either way. 

You can contact Pietro Cremone at fotosub Italy and ask for advice. We were together this summer and he shot it on the LX15 however when he had to give a lens to test to his clients for a 28mm full frame he gave the WWL-1 

Of course you can use it on MFT but is really more a tool for 24mm equivalent lenses and those are not the best in any case

Worth trying it when he does his nauticam days but I guess it will be next year now

On 12/8/2020 at 12:05 PM, nudibranco said:

The weight UW and its form factor to me make the WWL-C more desirable than the WWL-1.   170 grams UW is not bad (450 grams less than wwl-1!) and it is 2 cm shorter.  I am not sure why you say the the quality is not as good have you tried with the m43 mirrorless options?  I saw somewhere a test with the Sony 16-50mm lens (worse lens than the 12-32mm or 14-42mm lenses) which describes it at least as good as the WWL-1.  

 

I'm not sure I'm the best judge but I'll give you my feedback and thoughts on the setups I've been using over the past six months.

I have a Sony a6400 in a Nauticam housing and I have the WWL-C that I use with the 16-50mm lens and I also have the Sony 10-18mm lens that I use with the Nauticam 7" acrylic dome.

Due to Covid, all of my diving recently has been in Southern California and I tend to dive on deeper wrecks (50m+). That means it is usually really dark, a lot of backscatter & particulate matter in the water, green-ish water most days, I'm shooting wide angle, etc. I.e., they are very "camera unfriendly" conditions. I usually shoot with 2 x 15k Big Blue video lights and still need to boost my ISO for anything wide angle.

One reason I went with the acrylic vs glass dome from Nauticam is the 60m limit on the glass dome (yes, I know the Zen glass dome is rated to 300' and I will probably get that someday). 

The bottom line is that I'm somewhat mixed in my favorite of those two combinations and still need to do more shooting with the WWL-C. If I had to pick one, it would be the 10-18mm with the dome.

The WWL-C is compact (relative to the 7" dome) but obviously heavier vs. an acrylic dome. The 7" dome is "floaty" but I've put some of the wheel weights with stickers on the bottom to help with that. 

I've attached a sample photo with the WWL-C and the 16-50 lens. It is 1/60th, f5.6, ISO 1600 and 17mm. The corners are a bit blurry and this wreck was one of the shallower ones (40m or so). You can see that the corners get a bit blurry, but not too bad and if you are willing to crop a little, I'd say acceptable. 

I think the WWL-C is 130 degree FOV at 24mm FF equivalent focal length, but I "feel" like I get a wider FOV with the Sony 10-18. I also just like the way the photos "look" better. It is hard to explain but I think that is why I find myself shooting with the 10-18 more often.

I'm also working on a long-term photogrammetry model of a 60m deep submarine so I want to use the same lens setup on all the photos.

I did a 75 meter dive recently on a TBM Avenger in very dark conditions and took the 10-18 lens and wasn't shooting for a photogrammetry model. I can't attach another photo to this post due to size limits but I will post it to another message so you can get an idea.

My overall conclusion is that I like the WWL-C but I need to spend more time shooting with it in different conditions to form a more complete opinion.

- brett

1 minute ago, TmxDiver said:

I did a 75 meter dive recently on a TBM Avenger in very dark conditions and took the 10-18 lens and wasn't shooting for a photogrammetry model. I can't attach another photo to this post due to size limits but I will post it to another message so you can get an idea.

Here is a sample photo of the TBM Avenger taken with the Sony 10-18 and the Nauticam 7" dome. It is very dark at 75 meters in Southern California.  This photo has been developed a bit in LR but I haven't tried to remove backscatter, etc..

This is at 1/60th, f 8.0, ISO 1250 and 10mm.

You can definitely see soft corners and edges but keep in mind that you will always have sacrifices in these conditions with almost no natural light. You will either have to boost ISO or drop the f-stop, etc. but there are no free lunches.

If I dive this plane again, maybe I'll take the WWL-C and see how it does. 

- brett

On 12/9/2020 at 11:21 PM, TmxDiver said:

Here is a sample photo of the TBM Avenger taken with the Sony 10-18 and the Nauticam 7" dome. It is very dark at 75 meters in Southern California.  This photo has been developed a bit in LR but I haven't tried to remove backscatter, etc..

This is at 1/60th, f 8.0, ISO 1250 and 10mm.

You can definitely see soft corners and edges but keep in mind that you will always have sacrifices in these conditions with almost no natural light. You will either have to boost ISO or drop the f-stop, etc. but there are no free lunches.

If I dive this plane again, maybe I'll take the WWL-C and see how it does. 

- brett

 

Hello Brett!  any diving with the wwl-c? 

On 2/3/2020 at 11:25 PM, Angusparker said:

 

I’m using the na-36133 Nauticam N85 6 inch' Wide Angle Dome Port. It’s the standard plastic dome without manual focus knob. Housing is the standard Nauticam NA-GH5SV.

Hummm... There's something else going on!

I have the same dome with a GH5 camera. I used extensively the 12-35mm lens and it's perfect. No vignetting at all. This combination is even on Nauticam port chart.

On 3/18/2021 at 12:14 PM, nudibranco said:

Hello Brett!  any diving with the wwl-c? 

Hi,

I just got back from my MOD3 rebreather course at Eagles Nest cave so I've been offline for about a week working on that.

Anyway, here are some posts on my blog site with photos taken with the WWL-C and the Sony 16-50 "kit" lens. Some of them have objects in the corners so you can get an idea of the sharpness and some of them are relatively deep in cold, dark waters in California. If you want specific settings for any of the photos, just let me know which one(s).

All of these photos were taken with the WWL-C.

F4D in Santa Monica Bay @ 205 fsw:

https://wreckedinmyrevo.com/2021/02/12/f4d-skyray-santa-monica-bay-205-fsw/

Vashon / USS Cockatoo at Catalina Island @ 150 fsw

https://wreckedinmyrevo.com/2021/01/24/uss-cockatoo-amc-8-the-vashon-catalina-150-fsw/

Nightingale in San Pedro @ 145 fsw

https://wreckedinmyrevo.com/2021/02/25/the-nightingale-san-pedro-145-fsw/

SBD Dauntless in San Diego @ 195 fsw

https://wreckedinmyrevo.com/2021/02/06/sbd-3-dauntless-san-diego-195-fsw/

- brett