Which Nauticam 9" dome with Sony 16-35gm?

Hi All,

I have a Sony A7RII w/ 16-35GM. The Nauticam port chart (here) says I should use their 230mm dome #18812, but I have seen some used domes around and I'm wondering if they will work the same. Will the Zen 230mm dome #dp-230 or the Nauticam 9" White Balance dome #23212 work?

Is there any benefit of the Dome Port II over the Zen or Nauticam 9" White Balance?

Thanks!

There's no reason the other domes wont work with another 16-35mm lens you just have to work out the port extension if it's not listed on the port charts. 

The Nauticam port chart lists both the 16-35GM and 16-35 FA lens and it shows the GM lens using 10mm more extension than the FA lens.

The ZEN Port chart also lists both lenses and shows the GM lens requires the 35.5 mm N100-N120 adapter and a 70mm N120 extension which is exactly the same set of extensions as the Nauticam 230mm dome.  The Zen port chart is here:

http://www.jaredparsons.com/portchart/zen-only/by-combination-group/nauticam-n120/

23 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

The Nauticam port chart lists both the 16-35GM and 16-35 FA lens and it shows the GM lens using 10mm more extension than the FA lens.

The ZEN Port chart also lists both lenses and shows the GM lens requires the 35.5 mm N100-N120 adapter and a 70mm N120 extension which is exactly the same set of extensions as the Nauticam 230mm dome.  The Zen port chart is here:

http://www.jaredparsons.com/portchart/zen-only/by-combination-group/nauticam-n120/

Thanks. I have the 35.5mm adapter and extension ring 70 so that is good news that the Zen dome uses the same. Any idea if there is any optical difference between the Zen 230mm and the Nauticam 230mm?

11 hours ago, rgilkes said:

Thanks. I have the 35.5mm adapter and extension ring 70 so that is good news that the Zen dome uses the same. Any idea if there is any optical difference between the Zen 230mm and the Nauticam 230mm?

I would expect both to be a cut of a 12 cm radius and be made of same thickness glass. either way you are unlikely to see any difference. The 9" white balance port is acrylic for what I recall and that may bother you depending on how the lens is prone to flare

32 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

I would expect both to be a cut of a 12 cm radius and be made of same thickness glass. either way you are unlikely to see any difference. The 9" white balance port is acrylic for what I recall and that may bother you depending on how the lens is prone to flare

Thanks!

I believe the change to the dome port II was an enlarged lens opening to accommodate bigger lenses.  The Canon 11-24 was specifically mentioned.  Zen also has a larger version the DP-120 -1124 for the same reason.  The spec sheet says the Nauticam has an ID of 109mm.  The diameter of your GM lens is 88.5 mm so I would hazard a guess that you should be fine with either version.  The 11-24 lens has a diameter of 108mm according to the specs.     Finding the full dimensional specs of domes seems to be like uncovering a state secret for some reason. 

Saga Dive also has a good quality 230mm optical glass port that can be used instead of the Nauticam or Zen port. It’s also competitively priced in comparison. I use it for my 16-35mm and for spilt shots with my Canon 8-15mm. As a bonus, it has a removable shade. 

Differences you may want to consider are depth ratings which range from 40 to 100 meters, optical glass or acrylic and the reason I selected the Zen port is ease of removing the dome shade blades. I use the Canon 8-15mm Fisheye zoom with the Metabones lens adapter and this lens will vignette at the 8mm circular end without the blades removed. This is the best port for splits with the fisheye zoom. 

3 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

Differences you may want to consider are depth ratings which range from 40 to 100 meters, optical glass or acrylic and the reason I selected the Zen port is ease of removing the dome shade blades. I use the Canon 8-15mm Fisheye zoom with the Metabones lens adapter and this lens will vignette at the 8mm circular end without the blades removed. This is the best port for splits with the fisheye zoom. 

That's actually great to hear. I just picked up a Zen 230mm that should be arriving Monday. I don't shoot fisheye as of now, mainly 16-35 (switching from sony f4 to 2.8gm), but glad to know I can in the future.

What are the advantage or disadvantage between the zen 230 vs the nauticam 230? Price, shade?

On 3/1/2020 at 7:26 PM, hellhole said:

What are the advantage or disadvantage between the zen 230 vs the nauticam 230? Price, shade?

When I was buying my dome port, the two options looked identical except for price (and availability).  Bluewater Photo advised me that the dome ports were pretty much the same.  I bought the Nauticam.  I shoot a Nikon 16-35, first on a D810, now on a D850.

Incidentally, there seems to be a bit of a port controversy.  I bought in 2015, and was recommended a 90mm extension for the 230mm dome port.  Previously it seems a lot of people were recommended 70mm extensions.

In my case, I was never happy with the corners on my shots, no matter what aperture I used.  I was told a +2 diopter would help, but I saw no difference.  I was actually kind of pissed that I paid so much and hauled such big gear around only to get crappy corners.    Then I added the Sea and Sea Internal Correction Lens (a screw-on filter), and the difference was astounding.  F5.6 is where I like to shoot now, and the corners are good.

I have similar issue to what you were describing, soft corners even at f11 or f16.  I am using Sony a7r iv with 180mm Nauticam dome and 110 port extension and the corners are soft, blurry and need to discard 30% of each frame I take pretty much.  Considered +2 B&W diopter but most folks say it makes no difference.  Looking at your post you mention that with Sea & Sea corrective lens you get acceptable image quality.  Can you send me to some images that show this improvement, maybe before after.  Trying to find out if it is worth the $400 price.  Alternative is upgrade to WWL-1 or WACP from Nauticam.  Thx

The 180mm dome is the issue - way too small for a 16mm lens on full frame.   The diopter does not and can not help it only allows the lens to focus closer across the entire frame.

Bear in mind that the S&S lens works by flattening the field this means that without the lens the sharpest region at the focal plane  is curved so that on the flat sensor the image is out of focus.  Stopping down helps of course but has limitations.  The S&S lens brings the focus plane closer to being a flat surface such that stopping down can bring everything into focus.

The 180mm dome has a 110mm radius of curvature while the 230mm dome has I believe 120mm radius of curvature so the curvature of field at the focal plane will be slightly different.  I believe based on just the optics that the S&S lens will probably help but the effect won't extend as far into the corners as the image plane  will have a tighter radius than what the S&S lens is designed for.  On top of this I can almost guarantee the lens placement is not optimum behind the 180mm dome as the lens needs to sit forward to avoid vignetting with the small dome segment used in that dome, while the centre of curvature of the dome sits half way down the extension - it's a compromise to allow you to use a smaller dome.

I don't recall anyone on here mentioning they had tried the S&S lens with the 180mm dome.  Also note the S&S lens only comes in 77 or 82mm filter sizes.  While I think it will probably help I can't estimate how much and you'd be on your own trying it out.

The WWL and WACP are certainly options but come with some barrel distortion compared to your current rectilinear setup.  They are also wider throughout the entire focal length range the 16-50 option which is usable from around 28mm to 50mm on the 16-50 lens producing field of view equivalent to a 10-18mm full frame lens.   The very expensive WACP-2 would get you out to about 20mm equivalent field with a 16-35 lens and quite low distortion.

On 3/2/2020 at 2:26 AM, hellhole said:

What are the advantage or disadvantage between the zen 230 vs the nauticam 230? Price, shade?

It is the same glass.

Difference is mainly availability at your local retailer and shade (aluminium for Zen vs plastic for Nauticam).

My understanding of most glass dome ports is that the glass elements all come from the same source?

Adam

The Zen 230mm fisheye port is lighter by about 0.47kg (1lb), the shade blades are much easer to remove for use with a circular fisheye at the 8mm end and the cost is lower at  $1899.00 US. ZEN ports have a cool logo.

The Nauticam 230mm fisheye dome port II, comes with an elegant zipper carry bag which explains at least part of the additional cost. The dome shade is a more conventional petal-type port hood (four petals rather than two) at a cost of around $2240.00 US. 

Both ports have excellent optical coating and you will not be able to see any difference in image quality between the two. 

Regarding the S&S 77mm Internal Correction Lens I have used the lens with the Sony FE 16-35mm F/4, Zeiss Batis 18mm F/2.8, Tamron 17-28mm F/2.8, Nikon Z 14-30mm F/4.5 and others. I have also used the S&S lens behind ports from the Ikelite eight inch compact port, 170, 180 and 230mm. The bottom line is that the smaller the port the worse the results. If you intend to use the S&S lens on full frame I would highly recommend the 230mm or S&S large port. The S&S lens is limited to 77mm and 82mm and according to S&S they do not intend to make the lenses in any other size. I have used the 77mm S&S lens on two different zoom lenses with 67mm filter rings using a 67 to 77mm step-up ring. I would also not recommend trying the 77mm on a step-up ring smaller than 67mm, you will begin to defeat the effect of the lens. 

Last point for those using Sony full frame is that none of the wide angle zooms FE 12-24 F/2.8 or F/4, FE 16-35 F/2.8 or F/4 are going to give you better corners than water contact optics like WWL-1 and WACP. You now have options to use WWL-1 with Sony FE 28mm F/2 or Sony FE 28-60 zoom. Both combinations will be less expensive, lighter and smaller than the above listed lens options with gears, extensions and 230mm dome ports. The attached photo is Nauticam WWL-1 with Sony FE 28mm at F/10, I don't find the barrel distortion with WWL-1 to be near as bad as with a fisheye or fisheye zoom.

About 7 years ago I wanted to buy the Zen 230 glass dome but I was assured that the Nauticam glass was the same, so I bought it.  To check, I took a template of the internal radius of my Nauticam dome to Bangkok to see if Douglas Seifert's Zen dome was the same. They seemed identical.

A +2 B&W dioptre will improve corners, but also reduce the angle of view. I found I didn't need it with the 230 glass and Nikon 16-35. If the corners are a problem I would try the Sea & Sea Internal Correction lens. If I was doing this again, I would try the Sea & Sea first with the 8.5" acrylic dome which is so much lighter, cheaper and easier to polish if necessary.

15 minutes ago, PeteAtkinson said:

About 7 years ago I wanted to buy the Zen 230 glass dome but I was assured that the Nauticam glass was the same, so I bought it.  To check, I took a template of the internal radius of my Nauticam dome to Bangkok to see if Douglas Seifert's Zen dome was the same. They seemed identical.

A +2 B&W dioptre will improve corners, but also reduce the angle of view. I found I didn't need it with the 230 glass and Nikon 16-35. If the corners are a problem I would try the Sea & Sea Internal Correction lens. If I was doing this again, I would try the Sea & Sea first with the 8.5" acrylic dome which is so much lighter, cheaper and easier to polish if necessary.

Has anyone tried the S&S correction lens with the Nauticam 8.5" acrylic dome?  This is what I have currently and would like to hear if this is a good combo.  Or is a 230mm (9") dome a must for the correction lens to be of value.

1 hour ago, davehicks said:

Has anyone tried the S&S correction lens with the Nauticam 8.5" acrylic dome?  This is what I have currently and would like to hear if this is a good combo.  Or is a 230mm (9") dome a must for the correction lens to be of value.

Phil Rudin has confirmed that the S&S lens works with smaller domes -just not as well.  The variable will be the radius of curvature of the dome - the 230mm domes are reported to be 120mm radius of curvature so not quite a full 180°segment of a sphere.  The 8.5"dome is 220mm diameter and looks to be less than a 180° dome so it has at least the curvature of the  230mm dome I would think - I can't find the radius documented anywhere - it seems key specs on these domes are a state secret.

The curved virtual image means that the zone of sharpest focus at the image sensor is also curved.  The S&S lens corrects the image so that the zone of sharpest focus is flat enough to get the corners acceptably sharp across the sensor.   If the radius of curvature is the same or very close the results will be similar.  The additional problem with the small 170/180mm domes is that the entrance pupil is often forward of where it needs to be which adds to the abberations.  This might be an issue with 8.5"dome if it's not a full 180segment

Unless someone has actual experience you could try talking to one of the shops to see if they will let you test it.  You might have a better chance of getting them to say yes as the lens stays dry inside the dome. 

Sea & Sea have introduced the 210mm A/R Universal dome port with mounts for Sea & Sea and Nauticam included. The ports are made with a "PLANEXT" Amorphous bioplastic, more info at S&S website. This is an 8.27 inch dome and they recommend use with the conversion lens. The Nauticam 8.5 inch acrylic dome is not on the list of recommended ports for the Sony FE 16-35mm F/4 or F/2.8 but is is on the list of ports for the excellent Tamron 17-28mm F/2.8 Di III RXD for Sony full frame with a 40mm extension. The Tamron lens has better image quality than my Sony 16-35mm F/4 and you would be hard pressed to see any difference from the Sony F/2.8 lens. The Tamron lens is also less expensive than the Sony 16-35 F/4 $899.00 for Tamron v. $1248.00 on sale for Sony F/4. If you can live with an AOV of 103 to 75 v. 107 to 63 degrees you should consider the Tamron.

Attached photo taken with the Tamron 17-28 at 17mm, ISO-640, F/10, 1/60th sec with the 77mm S&S conversion lens and Zen 230mm port with the 40mm extension. Orange Grove Sink, North Florida last week. Free diver emerging from the cavern entrance.