Wetpixel Live: Water Contact Optics Review

32 minutes ago, Driftc said:

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?

No what happens is it's a retracting design that you need to extend before you use it.  It is shortest in the middle of the range and gets about 5mm longer at the wide and tele ends so no problem getting the full angle of view.  Phil Rudin has posted a lot about it here and no vignetting is reported that I recall.

Not a very sharp photo but you can see that at 28mm the lens is very close to the port glass and the difference at the 60mm end is almost identical 1mm +/-. As stated above the lens retracted around the center of the range, this is common for a lot of the newley designed mirrorless lenses. So you do get the full 130 degree AOV with both the WWL-1/B and WACP which uses no port. 

To answer the question regarding the difference between WACP and WWL-1 on A7R IV I have not done any extensive tests in that regard but my limited observations are that the WACP is better in every way. The question is a bit like asking which is best WACP or the S&S conversion lens. You get what you pay for and eliminating the port and the need to shoot through the flat port glass bumps  image quality noticeably in all areas.

On 3/31/2021 at 2:08 PM, Phil Rudin said:

Not a very sharp photo but you can see that at 28mm the lens is very close to the port glass and the difference at the 60mm end is almost identical 1mm +/-. As stated above the lens retracted around the center of the range, this is common for a lot of the newley designed mirrorless lenses. So you do get the full 130 degree AOV with both the WWL-1/B and WACP which uses no port. 

To answer the question regarding the difference between WACP and WWL-1 on A7R IV I have not done any extensive tests in that regard but my limited observations are that the WACP is better in every way. The question is a bit like asking which is best WACP or the S&S conversion lens. You get what you pay for and eliminating the port and the need to shoot through the flat port glass bumps  image quality noticeably in all areas.

 

The issue I see with this WWL-1 or WWL-1/b 130 degree FOV angle  trying to keep your strobes out of your shot. Ever shot Landscape with a 10mm Lens Full Frame? Like the Voigtlander Heliar-Hyper Wide 10mm f/5.6 Aspherical Lens for Sony E mount? Thats 130 degree and try to keep your Tipod legs out of your Landscape photos is a challenge. I speak from experience as I shoot the Voigtlander Heliar-Hyper Wide 10mm f/5.6 quite a bit inside churches to capture the entire architecture or some real wide Landscape shots.

Just saying... I think 28mm in a WWL-1 at 130 degree which will be 10mm is too wide to keep things simple underwater.

On 12/16/2020 at 2:46 PM, Phil Rudin said:

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.  

 

The images are NOT the same! not sure when you took both but there are SEVERAL MISSING pieces in the images

On 12/16/2020 at 2:58 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. 

same wreck? ALL 3 images of that supposedly same wreck look very different in the details aka missing stack on the right top, rope line lower left all not there? The wreck didnt change that much last time I dived it.

Are you suggesting that I have posted three images of different wrecks and then tried to say they are the same wreck? That is a bit of an insult particularly from someone who doesn't even use their real name on any of the his/her posts. 

Why don't you show use your images of this wreck rather than misrepresent mine.

To readers,

Phil Rudin has been around shooting underwater longer than 99% folks here.

He and I met in Palm Beach "back in the day"  31 years ago for a photo workshop seminar with National Geographic's David Doubilet. Since then Phil has pushed the envelope in underwater imaging equipment testing writing extensively detailed reviews for the UWPhoto Journal and other publications.

His pictures in this post showing the C-53 in Cozumel with different lenses, ports plus the relatively new low cost zoom lens / wet lens choice are guaranteed to help people make informed decisions.

Having dived this wreck with many different combinations of gear I doubt few others have comparison photos to explain lens choices, etc. His detailed notes on what lens, port, etc. are extremely helpful too.

Any post by Phil should be appreciated for the time and effort he's spent sharing with the underwater photographic community over 3 decades

David Haas

Stow OH

4 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

Are you suggesting that I have posted three images of different wrecks and then tried to say they are the same wreck? That is a bit of an insult particularly from someone who doesn't even use their real name on any of the his/her posts. 

Why don't you show use your images of this wreck rather than misrepresent mine.

20 hours ago, Xterra said:

same wreck? ALL 3 images of that supposedly same wreck look very different in the details aka missing stack on the right top, rope line lower left all not there? The wreck didnt change that much last time I dived it.

It's the same wreck for my money, just look at the location of the surrounding rocks to the hull, wrecks will change over time as corrosion and storms etc take their toll and there is nothing that says they were taken in the same time period.  The purpose of the images was to compare barrel distortion between WWL/fisheye/rectilinear - sharpness and corner performance has been covered in other posts many times.  I agree with Phil the claim it's a different wreck is a bit insulting, please try to keep interactions on this site civil.

21 hours ago, Xterra said:

The issue I see with this WWL-1 or WWL-1/b 130 degree FOV angle  trying to keep your strobes out of your shot. Ever shot Landscape with a 10mm Lens Full Frame? Like the Voigtlander Heliar-Hyper Wide 10mm f/5.6 Aspherical Lens for Sony E mount? Thats 130 degree and try to keep your Tipod legs out of your Landscape photos is a challenge. I speak from experience as I shoot the Voigtlander Heliar-Hyper Wide 10mm f/5.6 quite a bit inside churches to capture the entire architecture or some real wide Landscape shots.

Just saying... I think 28mm in a WWL-1 at 130 degree which will be 10mm is too wide to keep things simple underwater.

If a 130° diagonal is too wide then a 180° diagonal fisheye is going to be an even bigger problem and there are plenty of UW photographers using those successfully.  Proper strobe positioning doesn't have the strobes placed anywhere where they will be in the frame.  The strobes are generally placed out to the side and above and well behind the dome to avoid hotspots and there is no danger of them being in the frame.  Not claiming it's simple, but little in UW photography is truly simple.

4 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

......., please try to keep interactions on this site civil.

 

Critique is not civil? Sounds more like some ppl can't take criticism. If the owner (in this case Phil) wants to explain when those images were taken and how those images came to be different, fine. As said before I pointed out that they are not the same (maybe taken months or even years apart) but never mentioned in his post.

FYI, point out to @Phil Rudin to keep things "civil" "someone who doesn't even use their real name on any of the his/her posts. 

Why don't you show use your images of this wreck rather than misrepresent mine."

A name has nothing to do with critique. If you can't handle it, don't post on internet forums for everyone to see and expect to bow for you, just becaues you might have been around a coons age.

I believe as Chris and I pointed out critique is fine, just talk tech please.  As to the other issue yep, "hiding" on the internet is common and does devalue one's "opinion"  (in my opinion

If you believe in your points stand up and be counted!

Healthy debates I'll bet if done in person say, enjoying each other's company on a dive trip do happen.  So please try and think before hitting "send". 

One final issue regarding us "old timers". While still being enthusiastic underwater image hobbyists we participate because we feel we can help people make good choices and enjoy the activity.   

One example and comments relative to the various port / lens / wet lens choices....... 

Hundreds if not thousands of published underwater photos were taken with either a 20mm (about 94 degree field of view) rectilinear (non-fisheye) lens behind a large dome port or the water corrected Nikonos 15mm lens which is also only 94 degrees (being designed and corrected for underwater, it's really a 20mm lens.)

Wonderful shots by National Geographic photographers and magazine, advertising and other PAID photographers were made with lenses having less field of view than new offerings. Many beautiful coffee table books were made with rectilinear lenses behind large dome ports too. 

I believe today's shooters fret way too much over "corner sharpness", specific field of view, etc. The prime point of focus, lighting and overall image impact is much more important than overly debated technical details.

Phil and I differ on UW photo topics in some cases by 180 degrees. But I always value his opinion knowing it's from real world shooting and testing.

Signed, old geezer diving 51 years and planning my next dive trips!

David Haas

Stow OH

@Phil Rudin's images are definitely of the same wreck and were posted to illustrate lens distortion with different combinations of lenses. At no point has he stated or claimed that he shot them at the same time or that they were "the same". So both:

Quote

The images are NOT the same! not sure when you took both but there are SEVERAL MISSING pieces in the images

And

Quote

same wreck? ALL 3 images of that supposedly same wreck look very different in the details aka missing stack on the right top, rope line lower left all not there? The wreck didnt change that much last time I dived it.

Are neither relevant nor germane to the conversation and do not contribute to it. 

The wording of the posts does comes across (to me) as if Phil is being somehow accused of falsifying something, however, I am not sure that this was @Xterra's intent? 

In terms of online aliases, Wetpixel has a long and proud tradition of being very comfortable with allowing community members to use them or to use their actual names if they wish. There should be no implied criticism of doing either.

Adam