Wetpixel Live: Water Contact Optics Review

@Phil Rudin wow thanks for the insights! Yes, very interested in the WWL-1 with 28-60mm combo, as aside from the price of the WACP, 7KG top side weight is something I think I will struggle with quite a bit (have issues now already with a full Ikelite setup). Also having a fixed 28mm behind a WWL-1 means much less flexibility in shooting.

Have you tested the comparison of the WWL-1 with 28-60mm vs with the WACP? Is there a massive difference in image quality? Wondering now if it will somehow fit my Ikelite housing for the A7III. Hmm....

43 minutes ago, singkwan said:

 

Have you tested the comparison of the WWL-1 with 28-60mm vs with the WACP? Is there a massive difference in image quality? Wondering now if it will somehow fit my Ikelite housing for the A7III. Hmm....

the only requirement seems to be an m67 thread to take the WWL itself or a bayonet mount and a port that is not too long so the at the widest setting the lens is close enough to the glass not to vignette,    Unfortunately ikelite's range of flat ports is somewhat limited they have a one size fits everything philosophy.  The 75301 flat port is 64mm long  while the 28-60 lens is 45mm long meaning at least 20mm from port glass plus the distance from the housing flange to the camera body, so while it might physically fit you may see some vignetting and lose a little of the wide end.  Probably still worth testing out if you have the opportunity to try it in a shop  or make some measurements.

Thank you very much Phil Rudin for the information about the compatibility of the Sony 28-60 mm lens and the Nauticam WWL-1 wet lens.

I think we should be clear that both WWL-1 and WWL-C produce a fisheye image, with lots of barrel distortion. 

So while you can use it with the new 28-60 (and this may be a good option for use with Sony or Nikon mirrorless that don't have a viable fisheye option), it would be the same as using an fisheye lens with a dome, albeit with the possibility of a marginal improvement in corner performance. 

The WACP offers much less barrel distortion, used with the 28-60 or any other lens.

@ChrisRoss My understanding of WWL compatibility is that it requires a smaller diameter exit pupil on the lens. Although there is no real reason you can't put a smaller diameter lens into an N120 port, you can't put a larger diameter lens into an N100 one!

Aren't the WWL-1 and WWL-C much narrower than a full 180° fisheye and also much less fishy (although still more fishy than the WACP?). And obviously you get some zoom capabilities with the combination of the 28-60mm (or any other zoom in any other system).

1 minute ago, hyp said:

Aren't the WWL-1 and WWL-C much narrower than a full 180° fisheye and also much less fishy (although still more fishy than the WACP?). And obviously you get some zoom capabilities with the combination of the 28-60mm (or any other zoom in any other system).

130 degrees and they are equally distorted, the WACP is the same the less distortion only comes because the magnification is reduced all those lenses are not rectilinear

If you zoom a fisheye zoom it has less perceived distortion

1 hour ago, hyp said:

 And obviously you get some zoom capabilities with the combination of the 28-60mm (or any other zoom in any other system).

That seems great, i didn't realize that the WWL-1 gave full zoom-through capability for the 28-60mm.

15 hours ago, singkwan said:

@Phil Rudin wow thanks for the insights! Yes, very interested in the WWL-1 with 28-60mm combo, as aside from the price of the WACP, 7KG top side weight is something I think I will struggle with quite a bit (have issues now already with a full Ikelite setup). Also having a fixed 28mm behind a WWL-1 means much less flexibility in shooting.

Have you tested the comparison of the WWL-1 with 28-60mm vs with the WACP? Is there a massive difference in image quality? Wondering now if it will somehow fit my Ikelite housing for the A7III. Hmm....

First I will be testing the Sony FE 28-60mm zoom with the Nauticam WACP, WWL-1 and CMC-1&2 in the future. At this time the N100/45 port with focus wheel (for WWL-1)  and the zoom gear are not available in my area.

Second WACP mounts direct to the housing without a port so use on Ikelite DL or older housings is unlikely. I would guess you would also need a custom flat port with 67mm threads to use the WWL-1. Ikelite has listed the Sony A7c as a housing they may support and if they do I would expect support for the 28-60 kit lens with 67mm thread. 

Regarding image quality WACP has been designed for full frame cameras with high numbers of MP's. So on my 62MP A7R IV I would expect a noticeable difference in image quality V. WWL-1 with the same lens. That said we have outstanding full frame cameras in the 20-26MP range like the Canon EOS R6, Nikon Z6 II and Sony A7 III and A7c. With these lower numbers of MP's I would expect the gap between WACP and WWL-1 to narrow a bit. Without addressing the weight and cost differences both lenses are going to exceed current rectilinear and dome port choices without question. 

I suggest that anyone that does not grasp how a kit lens can out preform a high quality zoom lens and port read Alex Mustard's excellent review in back issue #99 at UWPMAG.com. This is a free PDF download and includes graphs of lens performance tests by Nauticam.

I agree with Adams post that the WWL-1 has barrel distortion on full frame as does the WACP but I would hardly agree that it would be the same as using a fisheye lens on mirrorless full frame. I have been using the Canon 8-15mm fisheye for several years now on full frame with an adapter and to me I can see a clear difference. You can decide for yourself between the images below of the bow of C-53 in Cozumel Mexico. Both images are taken at about as close as you can to the same distance and angle. The first is on a Sony full frame with a Rokinon 12mm fisheye and the other is with the Sony 28mm F/2 and WWL-1.  

Perhaps for clarity, this is the definition of a fisheye lens:

A fisheye lens is an ultra wide-angle lens that produces strong visual distortion intended to create a wide panoramic or hemispherical image.^[4][5]:145 Fisheye lenses achieve extremely wide angles of view. Instead of producing images with straight lines of perspective (rectilinear images), fisheye lenses use a special mapping (for example: equisolid angle), which gives images a characteristic convex non-rectilinear appearance.

FOV is not a defining characteristic, particularly given that fisheye lenses can zoom....WWL-1 (I have not shot WWL-C) produces an image with a stronger "convex non-linear appearance" than WACP-1.

In my discussions with the designers of the lenses, my understanding of the development of WACP was that the WWL was a spin-off when the team at Nauticam realized that producing a relatively rectilinear correction lens for use with full frame cameras needed much bigger and more expensive glass in order to make it work. Perhaps @Edward Lai would be happy to chime in here to discuss this too?

I think it would be wrong to suggest that the quality and appearance of an image would be the same with WWL and WACP. It may have marketing advantages to suggest this however!

I should stress that they are (in my experience) both excellent lenses, but are intended for different things.

 

16 hours ago, singkwan said:

@Phil Rudin wow thanks for the insights! Yes, very interested in the WWL-1 with 28-60mm combo, as aside from the price of the WACP, 7KG top side weight is something I think I will struggle with quite a bit (have issues now already with a full Ikelite setup). Also having a fixed 28mm behind a WWL-1 means much less flexibility in shooting.

Have you tested the comparison of the WWL-1 with 28-60mm vs with the WACP? Is there a massive difference in image quality? Wondering now if it will somehow fit my Ikelite housing for the A7III. Hmm....

First I will be testing the Sony FE 28-60mm zoom with the Nauticam WACP, WWL-1 and CMC-1&2 in the future. At this time the N100/45 port with focus wheel (for WWL-1)  and the zoom gear are not available in my area.

Second WACP mounts direct to the housing without a port so use on Ikelite DL or older housings is unlikely. I would guess you would also need a custom flat port with 67mm threads to use the WWL-1. Ikelite has listed the Sony A7c as a housing they may support and if they do I would expect support for the 28-60 kit lens with 67mm thread. 

Regarding image quality WACP has been designed for full frame cameras with high numbers of MP's. So on my 62MP A7R IV I would expect a noticeable difference in image quality V. WWL-1 with the same lens. That said we have outstanding full frame cameras in the 20-26MP range like the Canon EOS R6, Nikon Z6 II and Sony A7 III and A7c. With these lower numbers of MP's I would expect the gap between WACP and WWL-1 to narrow a bit. Without addressing the weight and cost differences both lenses are going to exceed current rectilinear and dome port choices without question. 

I suggest that anyone that does not grasp how a kit lens can out preform a high quality zoom lens and port read Alex Mustard's excellent review in back issue #99 at UWPMAG.com. This is a free PDF download and includes graphs of lens performance tests by Nauticam.

I agree with Adams post that the WWL-1 has barrel distortion on full frame as does the WACP but I would hardly agree that it would be the same as using a fisheye lens on mirrorless full frame. I have been using the Canon 8-15mm fisheye for several years now on full frame with an adapter and to me I can see a clear difference. You can decide for yourself between the images below of the bow of C-53 in Cozumel Mexico. Both images are taken at about as close as you can to the same distance and angle. The first is on a Sony full frame with a Rokinon 12mm fisheye and the other is with the Sony 28mm F/2 and WWL-1.  

16 hours ago, singkwan said:

@Phil Rudin wow thanks for the insights! Yes, very interested in the WWL-1 with 28-60mm combo, as aside from the price of the WACP, 7KG top side weight is something I think I will struggle with quite a bit (have issues now already with a full Ikelite setup). Also having a fixed 28mm behind a WWL-1 means much less flexibility in shooting.

Have you tested the comparison of the WWL-1 with 28-60mm vs with the WACP? Is there a massive difference in image quality? Wondering now if it will somehow fit my Ikelite housing for the A7III. Hmm....

First I will be testing the Sony FE 28-60mm zoom with the Nauticam WACP, WWL-1 and CMC-1&2 in the future. At this time the N100/45 port with focus wheel (for WWL-1)  and the zoom gear are not available in my area.

Second WACP mounts direct to the housing without a port so use on Ikelite DL or older housings is unlikely. I would guess you would also need a custom flat port with 67mm threads to use the WWL-1. Ikelite has listed the Sony A7c as a housing they may support and if they do I would expect support for the 28-60 kit lens with 67mm thread. 

Regarding image quality WACP has been designed for full frame cameras with high numbers of MP's. So on my 62MP A7R IV I would expect a noticeable difference in image quality V. WWL-1 with the same lens. That said we have outstanding full frame cameras in the 20-26MP range like the Canon EOS R6, Nikon Z6 II and Sony A7 III and A7c. With these lower numbers of MP's I would expect the gap between WACP and WWL-1 to narrow a bit. Without addressing the weight and cost differences both lenses are going to exceed current rectilinear and dome port choices without question. 

I suggest that anyone that does not grasp how a kit lens can out preform a high quality zoom lens and port read Alex Mustard's excellent review in back issue #99 at UWPMAG.com. This is a free PDF download and includes graphs of lens performance tests by Nauticam.

I agree with Adams post that the WWL-1 has barrel distortion on full frame as does the WACP but I would hardly agree that it would be the same as using a fisheye lens on mirrorless full frame. I have been using the Canon 8-15mm fisheye for several years now on full frame with an adapter and to me I can see a clear difference. You can decide for yourself between the images below of the bow of C-53 in Cozumel Mexico. Both images are taken at about as close as you can to the same distance and angle. The first is on a Sony full frame with a Rokinon 12mm fisheye and the other is with the Sony 28mm F/2 and WWL-1.  

@Phil Rudin- Which image was taken with which lens? I get more distortion in the bottom image...

Subject to lens distances may be part of the issue, or the focal lengths.

@Alex_Mustard's WACP review and his discussion of how the corrector port works with lenses, along with the Zeemax lens performance graphs at screen resolution is on Wetpixel here: https://wetpixel.com/articles/review-nauticam-wide-angle-corrector-port

Adam

As I pointed out in the post the top image is 12mm fisheye and the bottom is Sony 28mm F/2 with the WWL-1 as recommended by Nauticam.

Perhaps this will help. The attached photo is of the same wreck but from a bit further back with a 114 degree rectilinear lens the Olympus 7-14mm behind a 200mm dome port. If you compare to the two images posted above  the rectilinear shot comes much closer to the WWL-1 than it does to the Fisheye shot.

I missed where someone said they have the same image quality, I did suggest that lower res cameras don't show flaws in lenses as much a high res, cameras and that as a result the gap between WWACP and WWL-1 would not be as pronounced. 

It is rather difficult to compare wet contact optics with fisheyes and rectilinear lenses particularly if you only talk about diagonal field of view.  Fisheyes stretch the corners much more than the sides of the frame, this table shows the horizontal vertical and diagonal fields of view for full frame and m43 lenses, WWL is approximated as rectilinear as I don't know the mapping function, just adjusted the focal length to get 130° diagonal field of view.

The net consequence of this is that the WWL/WACP are much closer to fisheye field of view than you would think if you just look at the diagonal.  The horizontal and vertical fields of view are more important as you don't often fit a subject diagonally across the frame. 

As far as the look of the photo subjects towards the centre of frame tend to look fatter than they would in a rectilinear frame.  for example this Eastern blue groper shot cropped from a fisheye frame looks fatter:

compared to this one shot with a 12-40 lens at 12mm (24mm full frame equivalent)

The 130° water contact optics are going to be between the two in look and I would think closer to rectilinear look.

12 hours ago, waterpixel said:

That seems great, i didn't realize that the WWL-1 gave full zoom-through capability for the 28-60mm.

Oh, please don't quote me on that, until someone has actually tested it. It's likely it will work though.

With the 28-60 (vs the 28 F2.0) is there any difference in the close focusing abilities due to the increased distance between the lens and the flat port?  One of my favorite things about the WWL is its ability to focus right up to the dome. Has anyone tested that out yet?

1 hour ago, Driftc said:

With the 28-60 (vs the 28 F2.0) is there any difference in the close focusing abilities due to the increased distance between the lens and the flat port?  One of my favorite things about the WWL is its ability to focus right up to the dome. Has anyone tested that out yet?

yes it can focus right to the dome, no worries there ! 

On 12/16/2020 at 9:58 PM, Phil Rudin said:

As I pointed out in the post the top image is 12mm fisheye and the bottom is Sony 28mm F/2 with the WWL-1 as recommended by Nauticam.

Perhaps this will help. The attached photo is of the same wreck but from a bit further back with a 114 degree rectilinear lens the Olympus 7-14mm behind a 200mm dome port. If you compare to the two images posted above  the rectilinear shot comes much closer to the WWL-1 than it does to the Fisheye shot.

I missed where someone said they have the same image quality, I did suggest that lower res cameras don't show flaws in lenses as much a high res, cameras and that as a result the gap between WWACP and WWL-1 would not be as pronounced. 

 

Phil I am really curious about the comparison WWL and WACP with the 28-60 on the A7RIV. I have just tried the WWL and I am very happy with the results... Have you manage to test both ?

5 hours ago, Driftc said:

With the 28-60 (vs the 28 F2.0) is there any difference in the close focusing abilities due to the increased distance between the lens and the flat port?  One of my favorite things about the WWL is its ability to focus right up to the dome. Has anyone tested that out yet?

The recommended port for the 28mm f2 is different to that recommended for the 28-60 (Flat port 32 vs Flat port 45)

5 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

The recommended port for the 28mm f2 is different to that recommended for the 28-60 (Flat port 32 vs Flat port 45)

 

What I’m wondering about is the 28mm end of the 28-60 behind the flat port. My understanding is that the lens extends as you zoom towards 60mm, therefore leaving more room between the lens and the flat port 45 at the wide end.  Has anyone noticed any difference between the 2 lenses on the wide end with the WWL?