FOV: Domeport vs Wetlens

Hi,

I have a general question. When it comes to Wetlenses like the Nauticam WWL-1 or WeeFine WFL01, I can see the data sheet and know the estimated FOV for each lens combo. My questions would be, is there a list of expected FOV for typical lens + domeport combos? Like Tamron 17-28 and a 8 to 9 inch DomePort? 

I'm still planning my first real setup and I wan't to make sure I will grab the right gear for my money. 

you can use this table for field of view for rectilinear lenses:   https://www.nikonians.org/reviews/fov-tables

The field of view in any dome port is effectively equal to to the land field of view.

Fisheye lenses are not included on the chart.  A typical fisheye lens has a 180° diagonal but a fairer way to compare to rectilinear is to look at the horizontal axis field of view which is 130-140° for most full frame fisheyes.  the corners of fisheyes stretch a lot more and you wouldn't typically place anything important in the corners due to strong distortion there.

Thanks for the reply. This could shift my current setup to a wetlens if I can find something for my current low budget case. The FOV Table said I need at least 12mm to match the 130° FOV of a "standard" wetlens with a 24 to 28mm lens. 

Are there any reasons to use a domeport beside the ability to make half/half shoots? 

9 minutes ago, JYk said:

Thanks for the reply. This could shift my current setup to a wetlens if I can find something for my current low budget case. The FOV Table said I need at least 12mm to match the 130° FOV of a "standard" wetlens with a 24 to 28mm lens. 

Are there any reasons to use a domeport beside the ability to make half/half shoots? 

They all have their place, a 130° diagonal is equivalent to a 10mm rectilinear.  A 28-70 behind a WWL gives you equivalent to a 10-25mm (2.5x zoom) lens more or less.  a 16-35 behind a dome gives you a little more reach and has a little less barrel distortion which may be useful for wrecks or the reach could be helpful with sharks that won't come quite close enough.  The WWL is closer to rectilinear than a fisheye but still has noticeable barrel distortion.  For most purposes UW that is not a problem , but could be in some cases.

Bear in mind if you are on a budget some of the cheaper wet lenses are not zoom through and image quality goes down when zooming in.  The WWL and a few others are designed to zoom through.

What to get really depends most on what you want to shoot and to some extent what options are available for your chosen camera.  Is it reef scenics, CFWA, big animals, wrecks etc?

Personal for me I think most times I want do shoot wrecks and (artificial) reefs in cold/warm water (Baltic See and typical holiday tours like mediterranean sea, egypt and so on). 

Do you know some article which gone into details about the use cases for each setup? You allready said that sometime barrel distortion could be a problem and so on. 

This post has  a real-life comparison between Tokina 10-17, Sigma DX 8-16 and WWL-C taken from the same vantage point.

https://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?/topic/67658-angle-of-view-comparison-wwl-c-and-16-50z-with-sigma-8-16-nauticam-85-dome/&tab=comments#comment-429715

So if I'm right. The frist picture is by the Sigma and second by the WWL-C. I see more sharpness in the corners but also more distortion for the WWL-C. Do you know if the Sigma needed to use a higher aperture than the WWL-C setup? Just wanted to make sure both pictures where taken with the same setting (like F8 or F4 for example).