Rethinking Gear Setup

after going back and forth on the Sony 14mm 1.8 lens and a possible heavy / LARGE 230mm Superdome and reading a LOT, perhaps I should rethink my ultra-wide (weitwinkel) setup entirely for travel? Current setup A7RIV in a Nauticam 2020 housing have the 18mm Batis in the Zen 170mm Glass Dome, its fine (when stopped to F10+) but I sometimes wish I could be wider, hence the 14mm thought, but its also already quite heavy and bulky for travel.
Suggested reading was WACP setup with a 28-60 Sony lens, but this is VERY Expensive!
Would the 28mm Sony F2 Prime with the following 37127 Port plus 83201 WWL-1 give great ultra-wide (weitwinkel)  results (similar or better than my 18mm Batis)  (130 degree view with great corner sharpness) and my kit would also shrink a bit and I have a dedicated UW lens. Or even the 28-60 "Kit lens" and use the WWL-1 and CMC-1 for Semi Macro? However I do have a 90mm plus Macro port and its OUTSTANDING Quality.
Cause taking the 18mm Batis out after every day dive for Land use or simply only needing to change the battery in the camera is very time consuming.
Thanks for some thoughts and feedback.

I have used the Sony 28mm F/2 and the Sony 28-60 with WWL-1 on R IV, A7C and A1 the 28-60 is the better option. You still have the issue of split images which can not be done well/at all with WWL-1. I have used the Zeiss Batis 18mm with 170, 180, 200 and 230 ports and for splits 170 is a little on the small side but doable. 

I'm in a very similar situation, although I currently own a 230mm dome which I use with the 16-35mm f2.8 and a Canon 8-15mm and would like to share my opinion.

I sometimes read a lot of users complaining about traveling with one of those, but to be honest, I've traveled with it inside a hard checked luggage and never had a problem (although I put a lot of bubble wrap inside and out and keep it in a cinebag while doing so). I imagine traveling with the WACP-1 could be way more cumbersome, not even mentioning the WACP-2. However, in terms of "look" and image quality, both of them sound extremely enticing but also quite expensive. 

Which is why I've been eyeing the WWL-1B+CMC-1 with the 28-60mm. Sure, on land is probably useless compared to better optics, but weighs very little, and is not a big lens either. I guess this combo's main advantages are, in my opinion: reducing the size of the uw rig, offering a very usable zoom range, image quality and look, and price point. Would love to be able to shoot splits with it, but alas, nothing is perfect. I'm afraid there isn't a one-fits-all solution and I don't particularly mind changing lenses when I shoot topside.

In fact, Phil, who just posted before me has me pretty much convinced this is the way to go, at least for now. Who knows what Nauticam could come up with next.

12 minutes ago, Phil Rudin said:

I have used the Sony 28mm F/2 and the Sony 28-60 with WWL-1 on R IV, A7C and A1 the 28-60 is the better option. You still have the issue of split images which can not be done well/at all with WWL-1. I have used the Zeiss Batis 18mm with 170, 180, 200 and 230 ports and for splits 170 is a little on the small side but doable. 

Thanks so much. So since you shot all options (thanks so much for your efforts) from a Image quality point of view, is the 28-60 with WWL-1 plus CMC-1 on par or better as the 18mm Batis in the 170 Dome? Thank you much if you recall :-)

And the CMC-1 vs the true 90mm Macro from Sony how would you compare it in quality also focus speed (even though the 90mm Sony is not super fast focus but doable)

Also I don't shoot split images. Never found a useful site for it.

I might just get rid of my macro which I rarely use topside anyway

13 minutes ago, elmelodico said:

I'm in a very similar situation, although I currently own a 230mm dome which I use with the 16-35mm f2.8 and a Canon 8-15mm and would like to share my opinion.

I sometimes read a lot of users complaining about traveling with one of those, but to be honest, I've traveled with it inside a hard checked luggage and never had a problem (although I put a lot of bubble wrap inside and out and keep it in a cinebag while doing so). I imagine traveling with the WACP-1 could be way more cumbersome, not even mentioning the WACP-2. However, in terms of "look" and image quality, both of them sound extremely enticing but also quite expensive. 

Which is why I've been eyeing the WWL-1B+CMC-1 with the 28-60mm. Sure, on land is probably useless compared to better optics, but weighs very little, and is not a big lens either. I guess this combo's main advantages are, in my opinion: reducing the size of the uw rig, offering a very usable zoom range, image quality and look, and price point. Would love to be able to shoot splits with it, but alas, nothing is perfect. I'm afraid there isn't a one-fits-all solution and I don't particularly mind changing lenses when I shoot topside.

In fact, Phil, who just posted before me has me pretty much convinced this is the way to go, at least for now. Who knows what Nauticam could come up with next.

I dont want to even begin to imagine if luggage gets lost by the airline with your expensive 230mm Dome in it. I use carry on for all my Photo and scuba gear ONLY

The 28-60 plus WWL-1/1B is better than the 18mm behind any of the ports I have used it with. Again go to uwpmag.com and read Alex Mustard's articles on water contact lenses in the free back issues. If you don't understand the difference between water contact optics and using a dome port then you can't understand why a "kit" lens with WWL-1 or WACP can outperform even the best FF rectilinear lenses like the coming Sony 14mm F/1.8. 

Also the 28-60 with CMC-1 is by no means a replacement for a true macro like the 90mm but you can't shoot whales and nudibranchs on the same dive with the 90mm either.

Regarding the 230mm port, I have an old ThinkTank carry-on shoulder bag and I can stand the 230mm port on its side inside the bag and still have room for the WWL-1B in the case.

1 minute ago, Phil Rudin said:

The 28-60 plus WWL-1/1B is better than the 18mm behind any of the ports I have used it with. Again go to uwpmag.com and read Alex Mustard's articles on water contact lenses in the free back issues. If you don't understand the difference between water contact optics and using a dome port then you can't understand why a "kit" lens with WWL-1 or WACP can outperform even the best FF rectilinear lenses like the coming Sony 14mm F/1.8.  

I do now after doing ALL the reading last night and I read Alex's article already :-) thanks again.

I love to shoot wide angle, so that is my bias. One can shoot great close ups, but not macro. So, my consideration would be to start with the lens and then build around that. Further, you don't have to stick with the Sony line up. Tamron makes an excellent lens. After many years, I think of a good WA lens in the 9-18 range with most shooting at 12. So, I would consider a 12-24 as a great choice. Also, unless you want to go high complex you might have to give up Macro. Also, don't look past Sigma products either.

here is another Article / Test with the WWL-1 test by Reefphoto: https://reefphoto.com/blogs/photography/the-sony-a7c-underwater-shooting-full-frame-in-a-half-size-housing