Wetpixel Live: Lens Choices for Cropped sensor and Micro 4/3s cameras

20 minutes ago, caolino said:

I have a still a dummy question. I have sony compact set up and one of the benefit to move to mirrorless m43 is to have interchangeable lenses and keep compact but if I understand correctly the best option is to use the wet lenses and this can be easily done for both. Hence it seems doesn't make sense to change the lenses?

Thanks in advance for spending the time to help me.

 

No the best option is to use native lenses. Wet lenses have their spot to compete with rectilinear wide angle zooms but they are not rectilinear as such. 

For macro nothing beats a macro lens and you can add a wet lens. If your format has a zoom fisheye (APSC and MFT can both use the tokina) this is better than using a wet lens in terms of quality

3 hours ago, caolino said:

I have a still a dummy question. I have sony compact set up and one of the benefit to move to mirrorless m43 is to have interchangeable lenses and keep compact but if I understand correctly the best option is to use the wet lenses and this can be easily done for both. Hence it seems doesn't make sense to change the lenses?

Thanks in advance for spending the time to help me.

 

MFT and APS-C can be used both ways: when simple and cheaper is required with wetlenses, otherwise they can be used with different lenses and (dome)ports (more expensive and a hughe amount of stuff to take to an airplane). I believe that the advantage of MFT/APS-C over 1" compact for using with wetlens is that you do not have to use the built in lens as it is (that often makes troubles with wetlenses because it extents  a lot upon zooming in and the optimum situation is to have the port glass very close to the lens). The climax of these problems are housings for compacts with interchangable ports, depending on the wetlens that is planned to be used . With MFT/APS-C you can choose a "sweet-spot" standard zoom lens that probably every system has and that is 100% compatible with existing wetlenses. If you calculate the total costs for such a "wetlens" system, including camera, standard lens, housing, wetlenses, flashes, you probably will find out that the price difference is not great, but you gain better IQ...

Wolfgang

4 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

MFT and APS-C can be used both ways: when simple and cheaper is required with wetlenses, otherwise they can be used with different lenses and (dome)ports (more expensive and a hughe amount of stuff to take to an airplane). I believe that the advantage of MFT/APS-C over 1" compact for using with wetlens is that you do not have to use the built in lens as it is (that often makes troubles with wetlenses because it extents  a lot upon zooming in and the optimum situation is to have the port glass very close to the lens). The climax of these problems are housings for compacts with interchangable ports, depending on the wetlens that is planned to be used . With MFT/APS-C you can choose a "sweet-spot" standard zoom lens that probably every system has and that is 100% compatible with existing wetlenses. If you calculate the total costs for such a "wetlens" system, including camera, standard lens, housing, wetlenses, flashes, you probably will find out that the price difference is not great, but you gain better IQ...

 

Wolfgang

You don't get better IQ with a wet lens you get a range you would not otherwise have. The WWL-1 plus 14-42mm gives you a zoom fisheye lens that does not exist starting at 10mm however when you use the canon 8-15mm or Tokina at 10mm you get better quality

Lots of the comparisons are made with the rectilinear 7-14mm Olympus on the edges. This lens does not have a wide enough port to accommodate the field of view (you can try the 230mm dome) and requires stopping down. However when I compare my f/8 shots of WWL-1 vs my leica 8-18mm at same f/8 the WWL-1 is not sharper BUT I can use it down to f/4 and still holds while the other lens falls apart at f/6.3

If you already have a WWL-1 and stepping up from compact there is no doubt that you can take advantage of your lens however close focus wide angle requires a real fish eye and if you need a truly rectilinear shot you need a rectilinear lens

It is convenience but not necessarily superior IQ at wide end

At close range the 14-42mm lenses are nowhere near the quality of a 60mm zuiko or 45mm panasonic or 30mm panasonic. When you have some money you will want to buy those

The last purchase a 180mm done and an expensive rectilinear wide angle you will probably not make unless you want and you can

I have all those lenses so I am pretty comfortable with the conclusions. I use the WWL-1 for video for stills I never use it now that I have the 8-15mm working there is no comparison the canon is much better and does not suffer any reflection in a glass dome

1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

You don't get better IQ with a wet lens you get a range you would not otherwise have. The WWL-1 plus 14-42mm gives you a zoom fisheye lens that does not exist starting at 10mm however when you use the canon 8-15mm or Tokina at 10mm you get better quality

Lots of the comparisons are made with the rectilinear 7-14mm Olympus on the edges. This lens does not have a wide enough port to accommodate the field of view (you can try the 230mm dome) and requires stopping down. However when I compare my f/8 shots of WWL-1 vs my leica 8-18mm at same f/8 the WWL-1 is not sharper BUT I can use it down to f/4 and still holds while the other lens falls apart at f/6.3

If you already have a WWL-1 and stepping up from compact there is no doubt that you can take advantage of your lens however close focus wide angle requires a real fish eye and if you need a truly rectilinear shot you need a rectilinear lens

It is convenience but not necessarily superior IQ at wide end

At close range the 14-42mm lenses are nowhere near the quality of a 60mm zuiko or 45mm panasonic or 30mm panasonic. When you have some money you will want to buy those

The last purchase a 180mm done and an expensive rectilinear wide angle you will probably not make unless you want and you can

I have all those lenses so I am pretty comfortable with the conclusions. I use the WWL-1 for video for stills I never use it now that I have the 8-15mm working there is no comparison the canon is much better and does not suffer any reflection in a glass dome

I fully agree. I just forgot to mention that with the interchageable lens option one does not only tread in hughe amount of gear to carry around compared to wetlenses, but also better IQ

You are the first to make a real live comparison between WWL-1 and the adapted zoom fisheyes. Good to hear the fisheyes perform better...

As you say, comparison to 7mm rectlinear in 170 or 180mm domes is not fair, as this is neither fisheye, nor are these the correct domeports. There is an older tread were an UW-photographer (I believe it was Phil Rudin) tested the Zen 200mm port and found out better performance (this port is not produced any more by Zen, but Athena still seems to produces a similar, if not the identical, one). Since I have the zoom fisheyes, I am like you, not interested any more in this very wide rectilinear WA (If I would be I definitely would sell my Zen DP170 and try this here: https://www.unterwasserkamera.at/shop/catalog/de/product_info.php?info=p5758_athena-dome-port-opd-f200v-nauticam.html)...

Wolfgang

1 minute ago, Architeuthis said:

I fully agree. I just forgot to mentiom that with the interchageable lens option one does not only tread in hughe amount of gear to carry around compared to wetlenses, but also better IQ

You are the first to make a real live comparison between WWL-1 and the adapted zoom fisheyes. Good to hear the fisheyes perform better...

As you say, comparison to 7mm rectlinear in 170 or 180mm domes is not fair, as this is neither fisheye, nor are these the correct domeports. There is is an older tread were an UW-photographer (I believe it was Phil Rudin) tested the Zen 200mm port and found out better performance (this port is not produced any more by Zen, but Athena still seems to produces a similar, if not the identical, one). Since I have the zoom fisheyes, I am like you, not interested any more in this very wide rectilinear WA (If I would be I definitely would sell my Zen DP170 and try this here: https://www.unterwasserkamera.at/shop/catalog/de/product_info.php?info=p5758_athena-dome-port-opd-f200v-nauticam.html)...

 

Wolfgang

That 200mm dome looks very promising for those really wanting the 7-14mm wide field of view. For me 8mm is enough and the 180mm dome very good quality and I can use this with the 12-60 for video when I shoot people.

And yes our set up with canon 8-15mm is incredible. I cannot talk for Tokina however 8-15mm focal range covers more than WWL-1 on the wide end less on the tele end but this is not equally important. But price compared to 8-15mm is less than half so most people will be ok with that and then add a true 8mm fisheye for CFWA. I have to say the biggest limitation of WWL-1 and 8mm on acrylic dome is reflections that you do not get with more expensive glass

On 8/2/2020 at 10:17 PM, hyp said:

Looks like I'll just stay with my current setup and choose before the trip if it's going to be fisheye with the small dome or rectilinear with the 7" dome. I had hoped that maybe I could use the smaller dome for multiple purposes and get rid of the 7" dome. Buying a new N120 dome and adapter (they are bloody expensive...) would make the whole exercise quite expensive. Thank you for your replies though. 

So close yet so far - note that the ID of ports varies among the various N85 ports available.  here's a list of lens diameters and some ports I have to show the variation:

Oly 12-40:  69.9mm

Panasonic 8-18mm: 73.4 mm

Tokina 10-17mm:  69.9mm

Zen DP-100 N85 port:  76mm

Zen DP-170 N85mm:  76mm

Nauticam macro port:  70mm

Your 8-18 fits in the 7" nauticam dome and the Olympus 12-40mm fits in the Zen DP-170 and will pass through from the back with the Nauticam zoom gear attached.  Seeing as how the 12-40 fits a Zen port, it follows also that the Tokina will fit with zoom gear. 

Where you will run into trouble is with extension rings that you need for the metabones adapter.  if you could find an extension ring with the same ID as the Zen ports you could probably do it.  It would need to have the same metal port attachment lugs as the Zen - not the plastic piece Nauticam uses on the smaller ports and no internal bits.  Otherwise it would be the N85-N120 37.5mm adapter and the Nauticam 4.33" N120 port - which would add up to quite a bit.  It's too bad Nauticam didn't use the N100 system for m43.