Performance of WACP1 with different lenses/camera systems?

THIS ENTRY HAS BEEN REVISED AND UPDATED - SEE LATER POST (Tim - Moderator)

I just looked up in the Nauticam port charts for FF Canon/Nikon/Sony zoom lenses compatible with WAPC1, that are marked with asteriks (*), indicating that these WACP1/lens combinations give the best optical performance. I ended up with the table below (discontinued lenses marked by grey/italics; please correct, in case there are errors).

Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM | A; Converted FOV 132-76o (available for Canon and Nikon; usable on R camera via adapter (Nikon F and/or Z?)) - APS-C/DX lens, not applicable for FF!

Canon EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II; Converted FOV 130-59o (usable on R camera via adapter; discontinued lens, available second hand)

Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 II; Converted FOV 130-54o (usable on R camera via adapter; discontinued lens, available second hand)

Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 V USM; Converted FOV 130-54o (usable on R camera via adapter; discontinued lens, available second hand)

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM; Converted FOV 130-100o (usable on R camera via adapter)

Nikkor Z 24-70mm f/4 S; Converted FOV 130-121o (I guess 121° at the narrow end is a printing error in the port chart?)

Sony FE 28-60mm F4-5.6; Converted FOV 130-69o

Sony 2870 FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS; Converted FOV 130-59o

Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III RXD; Converted FOV 130-90o (Sony E mount)

Is the FOV range the only criterium to decide wich lens to acquire ore are there differences in optical quality that someone did notice inbetween possible lenses for a given camera system (center-, corner-sharpness, usable aperture, anything else)?

Did someone notice differences in optical performance inbetween the optimum combinations for the different camera systems?

In particular, when comparing Sony 28-60 with 28-70, is 28-70 the better lens, because of the wider zoom range, or is there something else to consider (except price)?

Interested to read your opinion and thanks for answers, Wolfgang

Regarding the three options for Sony I have used all three lenses and this is my take.

The Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 is a very decent option v the expensive Sony 24-70 F/2.8. The problem with this lens and several others is that don't zoom all the way through using WACP-1. So the lens stops zooming when it hits the rear glass on the WACP-1 not ideal for the expensive glass.

The Sony 28-60 is a small newly designed lens with better optics, speed and overall flexibility than the 28-70. It will focus at 30 FPS v. 15 FPS for 28-70. While this is not a common shooting speed underwater it allows faster focus and focus accuracy over 28-70. The 28-60 can also be used WWL-1/1B and CMC 1 & 2 closeup lenses in a smaller package. Regarding the 10 degree difference on the long end this is not something I often use and if I want a longer focal length I can always switch to APS-C mode and extend the range by 1.5 X at 26PM with A7R IV and 21MP with A1.

I also favor 28-60 with Sony A7C using WWL-1B for a small light travel package.

I have used just about every Wide angle rectilinear lens made for Sony with the Zen 230mm dome port and none outperforms the WACP or WWL-1 with the 28-60mm.

The attached is A7C with the 28-60 and WACP-1.

4 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

 

Is the FOV range the only criterium to decide wich lens to acquire ore are there differences in optical quality that someone did notice inbetween possible lenses for a given camera system (center-, corner-sharpness, usable aperture, anything else)?

 

Useful list; I was not aware that the Z 24-70/4 kit lens even works with the WACP-1!  My understanding from having watched Adam's Wetpixel Live interview with Edward Lai is that it is the physical size of the front element of the lens being adapted that is critical and that the quality of the lens is not important. My recollection of that video is that this critical dimension is about 60mm which brings up the Nikon kit lens as it uses 72mm filters. I just now removed the polarizing filter on my copy of this lens and note that the front element is quite a bit less in diameter than the filter thread. It is recessed so not possible to measure with what I have but could be as small as 60mm. The lens extends when zoomed to focal lengths longer than 24mm so I surmise that the position of the front element may be less critical than its diameter.

The Nikon Z 24-70 F/4 suffers from the same issues as the Tamron 28-75 F/2.8 on Sony. The zoom range is only 28 to 32 before the lens bumps the rear of WACP-1. This gives you a total AOV of 130 to 121 not really taking advantage of the full zoom range. 

If you want to take advantage of the full zoom range from an AOV 130 to 59 degrees the only current choice for Nikon Z  is the Sony FE 28 to 70mm with the Techart Pro auto focus adapter. 

The Z 35mm also works but at 110 degrees only.

2 hours ago, Tom_Kline said:

Useful list; I was not aware that the Z 24-70/4 kit lens even works with the WACP-1!  ...

The list is compiled just from looking at the Nauticam port charts, I do not have practical experience with digital FF, but consider to acquire a FF system (and the lens/port combinations are important to decide wich ysstem). I hope I did not overlook an important combination and there may well be combinations that give excellent results as well, but are not marked with asteriks by Nauticam. E.g. the Sony 28-60mm/WWL1 combination is not marked with asteriks (as many other lens/WACP1 combinations) - I assume this combination is optically inferior to 28-60mm/WACP1?

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I think you might be misinterpreting those asterisks in the port chart. They only exist when Nauticam is suggesting two possible combinations of ports (two version of WACP-1) and port extensions. In this, they just indicate for a particular lens which combination they feel is optically better.

The asterisk, as far as I can tell, is not meant to say which lens will work better with the WACP-1. I think the lenses without ambiguous port extension choices may have better performance. But maybe I'm missing something.

17 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

I just looked up in the Nauticam port charts for FF Canon/Nikon/Sony zoom lenses compatible with WAPC1, that are marked with asteriks (*), indicating that these WACP1/lens combinations give the best optical performance. I ended up with the table below (discontinued lenses marked by grey/italics; please correct, in case there are errors).

 

Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM | A; Converted FOV 132-76o (available for Canon and Nikon; usable on R camera via adapter (Nikon F and/or Z?)) - APS-C/DX lens, not applicable for FF!

Canon EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II; Converted FOV 130-59o (usable on R camera via adapter; discontinued lens, available second hand)

Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 II; Converted FOV 130-54o (usable on R camera via adapter; discontinued lens, available second hand)

Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 V USM; Converted FOV 130-54o (usable on R camera via adapter; discontinued lens, available second hand)

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM; Converted FOV 130-100o (usable on R camera via adapter)

Nikkor Z 24-70mm f/4 S; Converted FOV 130-121o (I guess 121° at the narrow end is a printing error in the port chart?)

Sony FE 28-60mm F4-5.6; Converted FOV 130-69o

Sony 2870 FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS; Converted FOV 130-59o

Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III RXD; Converted FOV 130-90o (Sony E mount)

 

Is the FOV range the only criterium to decide wich lens to acquire ore are there differences in optical quality that someone did notice inbetween possible lenses for a given camera system (center-, corner-sharpness, usable aperture, anything else)?

Did someone notice differences in optical performance inbetween the optimum combinations for the different camera systems?

In particular, when comparing Sony 28-60 with 28-70, is 28-70 the better lens, because of the wider zoom range, or is there something else to consider (except price)?

 

Interested to read your opinion and thanks for answers, Wolfgang

I believe the asterisk indicates which of the two or more options of extension or other factors offers the best performance.

On the 24-70 I think the 130-121° range is correct, they also provide the usable zoom range which is 28-32mm that lens extends by 30mm going from 27 -> 70 mm and probably hits the inside of the port at 32mm.

I would think the best utility would be obtained with a 28-70 or 80mm lens.  While the 16-35/40 class lenses work, the range from 16-17-28 is unusable.  The other thing to watch is that the old 28-70 offering from Nikon F mount probably won't be usable on Z mount via adapter as it doesn't have an on-board focus motor and Z mount won't drive these lenses.

I don't have the data to prove it, but based on the premise that an old 28-70 kit lens can out perform the latest wide angle lens in a dome and the praises sung about the image quality out of the WACP with these lenses, I would think any improvement would be in the pixel peeping range and I'd much rather have the zoom range to better frame subjects.

On 9/23/2021 at 4:48 PM, Phil Rudin said:

Regarding the three options for Sony I have used all three lenses and this is my take.

The Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 is a very decent option v the expensive Sony 24-70 F/2.8. The problem with this lens and several others is that don't zoom all the way through using WACP-1. So the lens stops zooming when it hits the rear glass on the WACP-1 not ideal for the expensive glass.

The Sony 28-60 is a small newly designed lens with better optics, speed and overall flexibility than the 28-70. It will focus at 30 FPS v. 15 FPS for 28-70. While this is not a common shooting speed underwater it allows faster focus and focus accuracy over 28-70. The 28-60 can also be used WWL-1/1B and CMC 1 & 2 closeup lenses in a smaller package. Regarding the 10 degree difference on the long end this is not something I often use and if I want a longer focal length I can always switch to APS-C mode and extend the range by 1.5 X at 26PM with A7R IV and 21MP with A1.

I also favor 28-60 with Sony A7C using WWL-1B for a small light travel package.

I have used just about every Wide angle rectilinear lens made for Sony with the Zen 230mm dome port and none outperforms the WACP or WWL-1 with the 28-60mm.

The attached is A7C with the 28-60 and WACP-1.

 

So if I understand correctly you rather use the WWL-1 than the WACP on the Sony?

4 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

So if I understand correctly you rather use the WWL-1 than the WACP on the Sony?

No 121 this is not what I was intending to convey. The Nauticam WACP-1 is clearly a superior optic too the WWL-1 and while I have not yet tested the WACP-2 my research indicates that WACP-2 out performs WACP-1 perhaps because it is used with Pro quality lenses like the Sony FE 14mm F/1.8.

I believe what I said is that the WWL-1 with the Sony A7C and 28-60 is more travel friendly than say the Sony A1 or A7R IV with the WACP-1 or 2. I have traveled with all of these systems (except WACP-2) and the A7C system is simply smaller and lighter a no brainer I would think. Optical quality is a different issue and as stated above with all three cameras WACP-1 is the clear winner and WWL-1 is the clear winner over any lens and port combo.

What I wanted the original poster to understand, because he ask is that having tested both 28-60 & 28-70 with WACP-1 and 28-60 with WWL-1 my choice hands down would be 28-60 for the reasons I articulated above.

Regarding the Nauticam asterisk system also referenced by the original poster, the system has changed a bit over time with the addition of water contact optical. So the Sony FE 14mm F/1.8 which I reviewed in the current issue of uwpmag.com has an asterisk for the WACP-2 the only wet wide optic it will work with. It also shows an asterisk for the 230mm optical glass dome port. The chart also indicates the 14mm can be used with Nauticam 180mm, 8.5 inch acrylic, 230mm and 250mm dome ports. The asterisk indicates that of the four dome choices that the 230mm port and extension combo gives the best performance of the four. The WACP-2 will clearly outperform the 230mm choice.

I hope this resolves any misunderstanding.

No 121 this is not what I was intending to convey. The Nauticam WACP-1 is clearly a superior optic too the WWL-1 and while I have not yet tested the WACP-2 my research indicates that WACP-2 out performs WACP-1 perhaps because it is used with Pro quality lenses like the Sony FE 14mm F/1.8.
I believe what I said is that the WWL-1 with the Sony A7C and 28-60 is more travel friendly than say the Sony A1 or A7R IV with the WACP-1 or 2. I have traveled with all of these systems and the A7C system is simply smaller and lighter a no brainer I would think. Optical quality is a different issue and as stated above with all three cameras WACP-1 is the clear winner and WWL-1 is the clear winner over any lens and port combo.
What I wanted the original poster to understand, because he ask is that having tested both 28-60 & 28-70 with WACP-1 and 28-60 with WWL-1 my choice hands down would be 28-60 for the reasons I articulated above.
Regarding the Nauticam asterisk system also referenced by the original poster, the system has changed a bit over time with the addition of water contact optical. So the Sony FE 14mm F/1.8 which I reviewed in the current issue of uwpmag.com has an asterisk for the WACP-2 the only wet wide optic it will work with. It also shows an asterisk for the 230mm optical glass dome port. The chart also indicates the 14mm can be used with Nauticam 180mm, 8.5 inch acrylic, 230mm and 250mm dome ports. The asterisk indicates that of the four dome choices that the 230mm port and extension combo gives the best performance of the four. The WACP-2 will clearly outperform the 230mm choice.
I hope this resolves any misunderstanding.
 

On 9/24/2021 at 5:31 AM, ScubaLute said:

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I think you might be misinterpreting those asterisks in the port chart. They only exist when Nauticam is suggesting two possible combinations of ports (two version of WACP-1) and port extensions. In this, they just indicate for a particular lens which combination they feel is optically better.

The asterisk, as far as I can tell, is not meant to say which lens will work better with the WACP-1. I think the lenses without ambiguous port extension choices may have better performance. But maybe I'm missing something.

Thank you (and Chris and Phil) for clarifying the asteriks system. I have asked Nauticam how to interpret the asteriks system on their portchartsb three days ago ,but did not get a reponse. Seems they are not interested in explaining how to read their portcharts...

I also believe now that the asterikses are only good for choosing the best extension/port combination for a given lens, but the asteriks are not meaningful to discriminate optical quality inbetween different lenses...

I have compiled a new list of available lenses and will post it soon...

Wolfgang

Based on the comments here, I have compiled a new list of zoom lenses that are available for different FF systems with WACP1 (my perception of naticam's asteriks system in the port charts turned out to be wrong). I also have added the posted practical experience posted here (hope I cited rightfully). What regards me, I already now have learned a lot from the comments here. This will be valuable for me, when choosing FF camera system and lens/WACP1 combination.

Further comments and notes on practical experience highly appreciated, I will put comments directly into the list as they are posted and I am able to edit the list...

I apologize for initially posting the inadequate list. I cannot edit it any more - could a moderator please put the new list on the top, so that it is better visible?

Wolfgang

New list. UW-photographers please state on practical experience and comment on optical performance (ideally comparison between different lenses, even inbetween camera systems):

Canon EF-mount:

Canon EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II; Converted FOV 130-59o; Zoom Range 30-70mm (discontinued lens, available second hand)

Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 II; Converted FOV 130-54o (discontinued lens, available second hand)

Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 V USM; Converted FOV 130-54o (discontinued lens, available second hand)

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 III USM; Converted FOV 138-109º; Zoom Range 28-35mm

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM; Converted FOV 130-100o; Zoom Range 28-40mm

Canon RF-mount (all EF mount lenses are compatible via adapter):

None

Nikon F-mount:

Nikon AF Nikkor 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5D; Converted FOV 130-59º (discontinued lens, available second hand)

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR; Converted FOV 130-109º; Zoom Range 28-35mm

Nikon AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED; Converted FOV 130-109º; Zoom Range 28-35mm

Nikon AF-S 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED; Converted FOV 130-109º

Nikon Z-mount (are Nikon-F mount lenses usable via adapter?):

Nikkor Z 24-70mm f/4 S; Converted FOV 130-121o; Zoom Range 28-32mm (According to Phil the lens bumps against WAPC when zoomed out, 121° is the narrowest angle possible)

Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS with Techart PRO Autofocus Adaptor; Converted FOV 130-59º

Sony FE 28-60mm F4-5.6; Converted FOV 130-69o; not mentioned in Nauticam Portchart for WACP1 (version of 26^th September 2021), but possibly compatible using Techart PRO adapter?

Panasonic L-mount:

Panasonic Lumix S 24-105mm f/4; Converted FOV 130-112º; Zoom Range 28-33mm

Canon EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II with Sigma Mount Converter MC-21; Converted FOV 130-59º; Zoom Range 28-70mm

Sony FE mount:

Sony FE 28-60mm F4-5.6; Converted FOV 130-69o; According to Phil this lens gives best optical performance of all Sony lenses. Also works very well with WWL1B, but optically not as good as with WACP1.

Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS; Converted FOV 130-59o (usable at all focal length with WACP1, but according to Opticallimits the optical quality is lousy: https://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/999-sony2870f3556oss)

Sony FE 24-70 mm f/2.8 GM; not mentioned in Nauticam Portchart for WACP1 (version of 26^th September 2021; According to Phil the lens works, but bumps against WAPC when zoomed out).

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Art; Converted FOV 127º; Zoom Range 29mm (according to Nauticam is only working at 29mm).

Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III RXD; Converted FOV 130-90o; Zoom Range 28-45mm

41 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

I apologize for initially posting the inadequate list. I cannot edit it any more - could a moderator please put the new list on the top, so that it is better visible?

I've flagged up your original one, Wolfgang that you have updated and revised it. Many thanks! Much appreciated.

23 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

Thank you (and Chris and Phil) for clarifying the asteriks system. I have asked Nauticam how to interpret the asteriks system on their portchartsb three days ago ,but did not get a reponse. Seems they are not interested in explaining how to read their portcharts...

I also believe now that the asterikses are only good for choosing the best extension/port combination for a given lens, but the asteriks are not meaningful to discriminate optical quality inbetween different lenses...

I have compiled a new list of available lenses and will post it soon...

 

Wolfgang

I have finally got an answer from Phil Burghard from Nauticam:

"Thank you for reaching out. Yes, that is correct that the combinations marked with a blue asterisk will provide the best optical quality. For the lens and port recommendations which only have one option, then that option is the best and only option for that lens. So therefore you won't find any asterisk as the best option is the only option. I hope that helps clear things up, but if you have any other questions please let us know."

=> so it is as suspected by the others: the asteriks system designates the best extension/post combinations for a given lens...

Wolfgang

Just to be clear the WACP-1 and WACP-2 mount directly to the housing (so no port) this means that any brand of zoom lens that can not fully extend has no where to go but to bump the rear of the wet optic if it is extended to far. With optics like WWL-1/1B, WWL-C, SMC/CMC a port is between the lens and optic so a zoom that is too long would be hitting the inside of the port glass. 

Also in the port chart regarding the Sony FE 24-70mm F/2.8 and WACP-2 the Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 will also hit the rear of the WACP-1 optic.

The point here is regardless of the camera/lens brand the port charts need to be reviewed very closely if you want to have a lens that can be zoomed through completely without touching rear optic with WACP 1&2. 

5 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

The point here is regardless of the camera/lens brand the port charts need to be reviewed very closely if you want to have a lens that can be zoomed through completely without touching rear optic with WACP 1&2. 

To continue on Phil's point to read the port chart look at the far right column and you can see that some lenses list a zoom range and others do not. Here's a portion of the port chart

If it does not list a zoom range then you can use the full zoom range of the lens.  If it does list the zoom range it indicates that either the lens needs to be zoomed in to remove vignetting or that the lens hits the rear element of the WACP and can't be zoomed further.

In the example above the 16-35 needs to be zoomed into the 28mm to avoid vignetting and at 28mm it gets the full 130° diagonal field.  Other lenses may need to be zoomed into 30 or more mm to remove the vignette for example the second option for the Canon 28-70 II which needs to zoom to 30mm and the max field reduces to 125°.

If the limit on the long end of the zoom range is less than the full lens zoom range the lens hits the rear element when zooming in.

The port chart is here, there are similar charts for all the water contact optics:

https://www.nauticam.com/pages/0-36x-wacp-wide-angle-conversion-port-chart

If using a Canon R5 with a WACP-1, the optimal lens listed by Nauticam is the 28-70 II f3.5-4.5.  If you are using this setup for video be aware that this is a lens with old technology.  If you are panning or swimming through a tunnel for example, it chatters as it hunts for focus.  I bought another 28-70 thinking the one I had was defective.  The second one did the same thing.  I tried the 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 V USM, a quieter lens, but the image quality didn't match the 28-70.

Even if you are attaching your own audio post, the image can jump when it tries for quick autofocus.  My solution has been to hamstring the AF by reducing the speed and sensitivity on various settings.  Of course for stills this not an issue and the image quality is outstanding.

3 hours ago, helgromite said:

If using a Canon R5 with a WACP-1, the optimal lens listed by Nauticam is the 28-70 II f3.5-4.5.  If you are using this setup for video be aware that this is a lens with old technology.  If you are panning or swimming through a tunnel for example, it chatters as it hunts for focus.  I bought another 28-70 thinking the one I had was defective.  The second one did the same thing.  I tried the 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 V USM, a quieter lens, but the image quality didn't match the 28-70.

Even if you are attaching your own audio post, the image can jump when it tries for quick autofocus.  My solution has been to hamstring the AF by reducing the speed and sensitivity on various settings.  Of course for stills this not an issue and the image quality is outstanding.

Just to clarify the recommended extension for the 28-80 is 5mm longer than the optimal extension for the 28-70II.  Did you use the longer extension when you tried the lens?

Yes, I bought the longer extension to try the 28-80, gambling that it would be equal to the 28-70, but it just didn't match the the sharpness at the edges based on testing in the pool.  I suppose I could use a modern fixed 28mm and give up the zoom on some video dives.

15 minutes ago, helgromite said:

Yes, I bought the longer extension to try the 28-80, gambling that it would be equal to the 28-70, but it just didn't match the the sharpness at the edges based on testing in the pool.  I suppose I could use a modern fixed 28mm and give up the zoom on some video dives.

Thanks, another good data point