I run a A6500 and got myself both a Sony 90mm 2.8 Macro and Canon 60mm 2.8 EF-S Marco with an adapter for it.

Due to Covid my underwater experience with either has been limited however.... From topside I can report the Canon 60mm 2.8 is easier to use, and the 90mm has a longer curve to get used to, but both very good lenses..

There is also a good price benefit of the 60mm in that is can usually be picked up 2nd hand and due to it not needing any zoom complications works with cheapo adapters, I use my MC-11 on my Tokina 10-17 and a Fotodiox adapter on my Canon 60mm macro and doesn't seem to affect the performance.

I originally looked at the Sony 50mm and there weren't that many positive reviews compared to the Canon 60mm.  It fits my housing, although is only Autofocus, but with back button focus and the usual techniques works fine on my limited beneath the waves.

The 16-50mm with wet lenses also works and actually better than expected, but with limitations.  I used it for my first trips with the camera and found it acceptable but really not a huge step up from a good compact set up.  The dedicated lenses are.

19 hours ago, lostloki said:

I run a A6500 and got myself both a Sony 90mm 2.8 Macro and Canon 60mm 2.8 EF-S Marco with an adapter for it.

Due to Covid my underwater experience with either has been limited however.... From topside I can report the Canon 60mm 2.8 is easier to use, and the 90mm has a longer curve to get used to, but both very good lenses..

There is also a good price benefit of the 60mm in that is can usually be picked up 2nd hand and due to it not needing any zoom complications works with cheapo adapters, I use my MC-11 on my Tokina 10-17 and a Fotodiox adapter on my Canon 60mm macro and doesn't seem to affect the performance.

I originally looked at the Sony 50mm and there weren't that many positive reviews compared to the Canon 60mm.  It fits my housing, although is only Autofocus, but with back button focus and the usual techniques works fine on my limited beneath the waves.

The 16-50mm with wet lenses also works and actually better than expected, but with limitations.  I used it for my first trips with the camera and found it acceptable but really not a huge step up from a good compact set up.  The dedicated lenses are.

Have you also tried the MC-11 with the Canon 60mm 2.8 EF-S ? Is there any difference in AF speed between the 2 adapters?

 

 

 

 

 

Have you also tried the MC-11 with the Canon 60mm 2.8 EF-S ? Is there any difference in AF speed between the 2 adapters?

Unfortunately the Canon 60mm EF-S's plastic fitting at the camera end seem to stick out too far which means the MC-11 cannot mount it.  To explain it better Signam and many 3rd party lenses have the electronic connectors almost flush with the end of the lens, the native ef-s lenses extend out further with a plastic ring.

The ring means it won't mate with the Sigma adapter.  However I have heard of people removing the plastic ring from their EF-S lenses to get the to fit, but didn't want to go down that route, and as said it works fine with the cheapo adapter as there is no zoom needed.

14 hours ago, lostloki said:

Unfortunately the Canon 60mm EF-S's plastic fitting at the camera end seem to stick out too far which means the MC-11 cannot mount it.  To explain it better Signam and many 3rd party lenses have the electronic connectors almost flush with the end of the lens, the native ef-s lenses extend out further with a plastic ring.

The ring means it won't mate with the Sigma adapter.  However I have heard of people removing the plastic ring from their EF-S lenses to get the to fit, but didn't want to go down that route, and as said it works fine with the cheapo adapter as there is no zoom needed.

Thanks for this very valuable information.

Have you ever tried to use good quality close up adaptors? I found using 50-75mm lens with these created killer macro photography. 

On 2/2/2021 at 6:56 PM, lostloki said:

The 16-50mm with wet lenses also works and actually better than expected, but with limitations.  I used it for my first trips with the camera and found it acceptable but really not a huge step up from a good compact set up.  The dedicated lenses are.

so this is also kind of a dilema of me.

I have a Sony a6300 with fantasea housing and I just love macro but the kit lens (16-50) isn't enough.

I'm trying to figure out what's better- buying the sel30m35 or buying a diopter and shoot with the kit lens.

I'm guessing the big con of the sel30m35 is the same as with all the dry macro lenses- I'm loosing versatility, I won't be able to take pictures of a stingray swimming or things like that... 

SEL30M35 isn't much of a macro lens - the working distance is just too short. Its 1:1 reproduction distance is basically on the port glass, and lighting subjects that close is quite a challenge. It should be fine for fish portraits and such - 30mm should be quite adequate for rays, so long as it's not gigantic mantas - just not for the really tiny stuff.

I shoot macro with SEL90M28G on my A6300, and I'm quite happy with it, although it's definitely a dedicated macro lens - a 4-5 inch subject is basically as big as it will frame from reasonable distance. In very clear water, with powerful strobes, you can get away with bigger stuff - for example, this giant frogfish was shot from about six feet away - but that's more of an exception than the rule.

As far as diopters go, I have a Weefine WFL05S (+13) that I use with my 90mm for supermacro, and I just got the short threaded flat port for my housing that would allow me to use it with 16-50mm, and land testing (haven't taken it underwater yet) gives me frame widths from 28mm at minimum focus distance to 40mm at maximum focus distance (16-50mm zoomed to 50mm and set to manual focus). A weaker diopter will move this window towards the larger subject sizes.

12 hours ago, sarthur1 said:

so this is also kind of a dilema of me.

I have a Sony a6300 with fantasea housing and I just love macro but the kit lens (16-50) isn't enough.

I'm trying to figure out what's better- buying the sel30m35 or buying a diopter and shoot with the kit lens.

I'm guessing the big con of the sel30m35 is the same as with all the dry macro lenses- I'm loosing versatility, I won't be able to take pictures of a stingray swimming or things like that... 

As Barmagalot says the 30mm macro isn't really that great as there is no working distance.  The 16-50 with diopters is also a little limiting, the Nauticam port charts give you some indication of magnification and working distance with their CMC diopters, you can decent magnification of just under lifesize but the working distance is only 46mm with CMC-1.  Contrast this to the 90mm macro which gets life size with 130mm working distance.

The other options are the 50mm macro lenses, they have around 60mm working distance at 1:1 and while they take diopters working distance is very short.  The adapted 60mm may be an option as it seems it would give reasonable working distance with the CMC-2. 

Data is in this port chart:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Fhg3Qx21pDH_prmZNKlsZUmBaHW86pWg/view

It's all for Nauticam diopters, but similar power diopters from other vendors will have similar performance - working distance will vary a little.  As for AF performance that varies between the lenses and also I believe the newer A6xxx series bodies are better with AF.