Performance of WACP1 with different lenses/camera systems?

View archived post in: Performance of WACP1 with different lenses/camera systems?

Thanks Alex for your answer. Yes I had something like that in mind that I read that once. but that from this attempt that the WACP1&2 were developed I did not know...interesting.

The function of the dome is clear, the light correct angle for the subsequent lenses to break and that in the medium water.
According to my physical understanding, however, the light must be directed exactly straight out of the wwl1 when it exits (on the back side in the direction of the port). this is the only way for the light to reach the lens and then the sensor of the camera correctly. the light is therefore directed exactly straight through the water and the port glass and there are some reflection losses. i can't say how great the influence on the image quality is, but according to my logic it should definitely not be worse.

15 hours ago, ErolE said:

Hey Alex, 

Hope you are well. As someone who has tested all the wet optics, can you shed any light on what the issue is with FF EF mount?

Tom Kline referenced an interview (which I couldn t find) stating that the physical dimensions of the lens (in particular the diameter of the front element), where an important component for lens compatibility with the WACP1. I wonder if this is the same issue with the WWL. 

When I get back stateside I ll probably rent and run some tests to see what suits, but at the moment I am trying to formulate a plan. 

 

Thanks and hope you are well 

It is in here somewhere: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3Rf_mU-wBuBXas7fBRJrMQ

Adam did back to back interviews with Edward Lai not too long ago - check these out first.

As well it was discussed here when the WACP-1 was first introduced. Alex mentioned that he used the Nikon 28-70 which I understood to mean the f/2.8 lens that preceded the 24-70 models but was wrong. He corrected me - it was the variable aperture model that uses 52mm filters if I recall correctly.

Here two interviews:

Thanks Tom and Davide

Hey sorry in advance for repeating the same question. Im currently using the canon r5 with the rf 15-35mm in a nauticam housing behind a 180mm dome port. Im planning a trip to Tonga and few other other places that benefit from a wider field of view and that would benefit from a close focus wide angle shot. I do both videos and well as photos and im not sure whether I should get the canon 28-70 lens or just stick with my current setup. My only concern with respect to the ef 28-70 is how well it would work with the r5 in terms of image stabilisation and auto focus capability. 

Another Justin I had is, is the sigma 18-35 compatible with the r5? if so what adaptor should I be using ? any leads would be really appreciated. Sorry if im asking questions that haas already been answered. 

6 hours ago, vinmatt said:

Hey sorry in advance for repeating the same question. Im currently using the canon r5 with the rf 15-35mm in a nauticam housing behind a 180mm dome port. Im planning a trip to Tonga and few other other places that benefit from a wider field of view and that would benefit from a close focus wide angle shot. I do both videos and well as photos and im not sure whether I should get the canon 28-70 lens or just stick with my current setup. My only concern with respect to the ef 28-70 is how well it would work with the r5 in terms of image stabilisation and auto focus capability. 

 

Another Justin I had is, is the sigma 18-35 compatible with the r5? if so what adaptor should I be using ? any leads would be really appreciated. Sorry if im asking questions that haas already been answered. 

Are you referring to the 28-70 lens alone?  The discussion above is regarding using the 28-70 lens with the WACP.   It is this lens:  https://www.lenstip.com/451-Canon_EF_28-70_mm_f_3.5-4.5_II-lens_specifications.html. It will give you an equivalent field of view of a 10mm rectilinear lens or about 130° on the diagonal when used in conjunction with the WACP.    It would certainly have better optics than the 15-35 particularly behind the small 180mm dome at the cost of weight and the expense of the WACP.

Regarding the Sigma lens I assume you mean the sigma 18-35 f1.8 DC HSM as listed on the WACP port chart.  That lens is an APS-C lens I believe and would not be suitable to use on full frame.

3 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

Are you referring to the 28-70 lens alone?  The discussion above is regarding using the 28-70 lens with the WACP.   It is this lens:  https://www.lenstip.com/451-Canon_EF_28-70_mm_f_3.5-4.5_II-lens_specifications.html. It will give you an equivalent field of view of a 10mm rectilinear lens or about 130° on the diagonal when used in conjunction with the WACP.    It would certainly have better optics than the 15-35 particularly behind the small 180mm dome at the cost of weight and the expense of the WACP.

Regarding the Sigma lens I assume you mean the sigma 18-35 f1.8 DC HSM as listed on the WACP port chart.  That lens is an APS-C lens I believe and would not be suitable to use on full frame.

 

Thanks you and sorry I should have been more clear. Yes I mainly meant the 28-70 f3.5-4.5 II,  how good it works with the r5 and whether anyone has experience with it.

I was also considering the RF 24-70 but I mailed nauticam and they said it can't be used because the zoom range extends beyond the front element of the wacp so again it can't be used. So I was wondering whether the RF 24-70 can be adapted to use with the wacp maybe with an extender of sorts 

5 hours ago, vinmatt said:

Thanks you and sorry I should have been more clear. Yes I mainly meant the 28-70 f3.5-4.5 II,  how good it works with the r5 and whether anyone has experience with it.

 

I was also considering the RF 24-70 but I mailed nauticam and they said it can't be used because the zoom range extends beyond the front element of the wacp so again it can't be used. So I was wondering whether the RF 24-70 can be adapted to use with the wacp maybe with an extender of sorts 

If you are talking about using the lenses with the WACP I would suggest sticking with the recommendations in the port chart.  The lens needs to be positioned close enough to the port when set at the widest setting so it won't vignette and the lens change of length must be such that it doesn't hit the port.  This restricts which lenses can be used with the WACP.  The 28-70 II hardly changes length when zoomed so is ideal.

What is your concern with the 28-70 lens? I expect it should focus just fine and the in body stabilisation works with any lens.  The only issue you may have is finding one as you would need to search for a good second hand one.  There were lots of them made so finding one shouldn't be too hard.

Yeah my main concerns are as follows the autofocus being the main concern whether it will work seamlessly with the r5 secondly whether nauticam might release a wacp1 suited for the rf lenses, in such a case will I still be able to use the old wacp with any rf lenses. would you happen to know anyone at nauticam that might be able to throw some light on any of their future development?

Thanks Chris,

Best wishe

Vinay 

1 hour ago, vinmatt said:

Yeah my main concerns are as follows the autofocus being the main concern whether it will work seamlessly with the r5 secondly whether nauticam might release a wacp1 suited for the rf lenses, in such a case will I still be able to use the old wacp with any rf lenses. would you happen to know anyone at nauticam that might be able to throw some light on any of their future development?

 

Thanks Chris,

 

Best wishe

Vinay 

Sorry, no, don't have contacts.   My understanding is that they utilise the older lenses mainly due to optical properties that suit the optical design of the WACP.  This includes limits on entrance pupil size and front element size and not changing length excessively among other features.  Few newer lenses are designed with all the required features and any that do are more or less chance that they will work.   I would think if you wanted to go this path you could be waiting a long time and even then you may never see a new item released.  You could look at the WACP-2 if you wanted an version that uses current lenses - but the price is near double that of the WACP it can use the 14-35 and 15-35 lenses.

Wide angle to mid range optics generally do not present a challenge to AF quickly so it's unlikely there will be problems.  The lens is quite cheap to buy and you could purchase one to test on the R5 before you commit to the WACP - if AF works on land there should be on difference behind the WACP.

As to whether to stick with the 15-35 - I would note that the 180mm dome is a bit small for decent corner performance with that lens.  The 15mm gives you about 100° across the long axis of your camera while the WACP would give you 120° - a reasonable increase. 

You could get a significantly wider view again with a fisheye lens - about 140° across the horizontal axis - possibly quite useful with whales in Tonga - but possibly not as good for video use, the costs would be significantly lower as well.

Thanks Chris,

More than the cost im worried about the weight of the wacp2. It is definitely pricey but I guess that comes at the cost of such a fine piece of glass but just thinking about lugging around such a heavy equipment in addition to the weight of the housing the strobes and video lights is what has got me concerned. Im from India and there aren't any nauticam dealers around here nor in easy to get to countries like Dubai where I could see the lenses in person. 

Coming back to the 15-35mm do you think ill get better corner sharpness if I were to get a wider dome port like a 230mm ?

Really appreciate your quick replies and feedbacks, thanks. 

Vinmatt,

This is simple stuff if you just read the Nauticam port charts. At the bottom of the RF port chart it indicates that using the EF to EOS-R lens adapter you can them go to the Canon EF port charts and use the lens recommendations there.

So with the Canon EF 28-70mm F/3.5-5.6 II you would use an N120 25 port extension with the WACP-1. 

Other EF lenses that work with WACP-1 are also listed both fixed and zoom but it appears that the EF 28-70 F/3.5-5.6 II is the most highly recommended. It also allows you to use the entire 130-54 WACP-1 zoom range.

9 hours ago, vinmatt said:

Thanks Chris,

 

More than the cost im worried about the weight of the wacp2. It is definitely pricey but I guess that comes at the cost of such a fine piece of glass but just thinking about lugging around such a heavy equipment in addition to the weight of the housing the strobes and video lights is what has got me concerned. Im from India and there aren't any nauticam dealers around here nor in easy to get to countries like Dubai where I could see the lenses in person. 

 

Coming back to the 15-35mm do you think ill get better corner sharpness if I were to get a wider dome port like a 230mm ?

 

Really appreciate your quick replies and feedbacks, thanks. 

The WACP-1 is also a heavy item at near 4kg in air and not an insignificant investment.  There's no doubt your corner sharpness will improve with the 230mm dome, but even then you would be looking at f13-16 to get the best corners.  Bear in mind that shooting whales in Tonga the corners will be water so corner sharpness will be less important, but I expect the unsharp region might be quite extensive with the 180mm dome.  But the 230mm dome is also quite a large item, much more so than the dimensions might suggest.

For photos and travel I would think a better solution would be a fisheye lens - possibly the sigma 15mm in the 140mm dome.  But as I said before probably not so good for video.

You could buy a 230mm dome a 140mm dome and a sigma 15mm fisheye lens for less than the price of a WACP.  Use the 230mm dome with the 15-35 for video and the 15mm sigma in the 140mm dome for photos.  You could use the 230mm dome with the fisheye as well, but it's not quite so good at CFWA - the dome prevents you getting in a s close.  If you are swimming with whales in Tonga, the 140mm dome will be much easier to handle.

Thanks a lot Phil and Chris,

Thanks giving me such an in depth information. Really appreciate your quick and in depth replies.

16 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

The WACP-1 is also a heavy item at near 4kg in air and not an insignificant investment.  There's no doubt your corner sharpness will improve with the 230mm dome, but even then you would be looking at f13-16 to get the best corners.  Bear in mind that shooting whales in Tonga the corners will be water so corner sharpness will be less important, but I expect the unsharp region might be quite extensive with the 180mm dome.  But the 230mm dome is also quite a large item, much more so than the dimensions might suggest.

For photos and travel I would think a better solution would be a fisheye lens - possibly the sigma 15mm in the 140mm dome.  But as I said before probably not so good for video.

You could buy a 230mm dome a 140mm dome and a sigma 15mm fisheye lens for less than the price of a WACP.  Use the 230mm dome with the 15-35 for video and the 15mm sigma in the 140mm dome for photos.  You could use the 230mm dome with the fisheye as well, but it's not quite so good at CFWA - the dome prevents you getting in a s close.  If you are swimming with whales in Tonga, the 140mm dome will be much easier to handle.

Regarding the WACP-1 I think Chris and I would both agree that it is by far the better preforming lens with the Canon EF 28-70mm F/3.5-5.6 II lens and EF to RF lens adapter. Let me know if I am wrong Chris. The issue as Chris has pointed out them becomes cost and weight.

This is where I differ with Chris, if you do the math and compare apples to apples you need to include the cost and weight of the lens for both systems. The Canon RF 15-35 F/2.8 L, Nauticam gear, extension and 230mm port new cost $5600.00US and lens and dome weigh in at 3.51K. The Used Canon EF 28-70 with adapter, Nauticam gear, extension and WACP-1 cost $6291.00US (I added $400.00 for lens and adapter, you can find much better deals) That combo has a weight for lens and WACP of around 4.30K. This gives you a weight difference of about .89k (around 2lb) and a cost difference of $690. If you add the $400.00US cost of the S&S 82mm correction lens which would be highly recommended to the 15-35 package the cost difference becomes $290.00US and you will still not have anywhere near the corner sharpness as with WACP-1 at any given F/number. 

Last I have traveled with both and I find the much larger 230mm port to be more of a hassle than the WACP-1 because of its size.

That's a really interesting comparison, Phil - thanks. Totally agree with you - and as many others have commented - on traveling with a 230 dome: horrible! My partner loves to tell horror stories about airport transits with a bag filled with just a domeport.

4.3 kgs is still a huge amount of extra weight to lug around to create a wide-angle option. I gave up on all that and went for the Sigma 15mm FE option that Chris outlines. Easy to travel, totally manageable wide-angle effects and way cheaper. Results were great.

The Nauticam 140mm port is half the cost of the 230mm and the 15mm and adapter are around $500.00 or better in the used market. Even adding the 30mm extension, gear and Canon 8-15mm fisheye will be lighter and much less expensive. But again Fisheye and rectilinear are just not apples to apples so if rectilinear is what Vinmatt is looking for on full frame any way you cut it you need to bite the bullet. My choice with the 230mm port would have been the 14-35 F/4 L (half the cost of the 15-35 F/2.8 L) with the 77mm S&S conversion lens. Image quality will be much the same underwater. The 15-35 F/2.8 would of course be a much better land lens for many uses.

10 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

Regarding the WACP-1 I think Chris and I would both agree that it is by far the better preforming lens with the Canon EF 28-70mm F/3.5-5.6 II lens and EF to RF lens adapter. Let me know if I am wrong Chris. The issue as Chris has pointed out them becomes cost and weight.

This is where I differ with Chris, if you do the math and compare apples to apples you need to include the cost and weight of the lens for both systems. The Canon RF 15-35 F/2.8 L, Nauticam gear, extension and 230mm port new cost $5600.00US and lens and dome weigh in at 3.51K. The Used Canon EF 28-70 with adapter, Nauticam gear, extension and WACP-1 cost $6291.00US (I added $400.00 for lens and adapter, you can find much better deals) That combo has a weight for lens and WACP of around 4.30K. This gives you a weight difference of about .89k (around 2lb) and a cost difference of $690. If you add the $400.00US cost of the S&S 82mm correction lens which would be highly recommended to the 15-35 package the cost difference becomes $290.00US and you will still not have anywhere near the corner sharpness as with WACP-1 at any given F/number. 

Last I have traveled with both and I find the much larger 230mm port to be more of a hassle than the WACP-1 because of its size.

Phil, my analysis is based on the fact the OP already has the 15-35 lens.  It's probably a better option for video, but requires a 230mm port to use for stills if you want decent corners.   Yes I do agree the 28-70 behind the WACP would be the sharpest options with best corners.  It's not an easy problem to solve - much depends on how deep the OP's pockets are and how important video is to him.  The fisheye - possibly the Sigma 15mm is a nice solution for reef scenics, CFWA and whales- but probably not so popular for video I imagine it could work for some subjects but you need to pay attention to things heading into the corners and getting distorted - a lot easier to deal with for stills than for video.  The WACP on the other hand is a nice option for both stills and video.  

I'm somewhat surprised that no-one seems to talk about the performance of the Sigma 18-35F1.8 with the WACP-1 on APS-C cameras or full frame cameras in crop mode. Of the various lens options that work with the WACP-1, I would expect the Sigma 18-35 to have the best optical quality, also combined with the fastest aperture (whether you can shoot it wide open with acceptable corners with the WACP-1 is a different question, but the APS-C crop factor should allow acceptable results at F2.8 or at least F4, I would expect).

Top-side, the Sigma 18-35 is often compared favourably purely from an optical performance perspective with modern, professional 24-70 zooms from Canon, Sony and Nikon. And since none of those zooms work behind the WACP-1, I would think that the Sigma 18-35 would actually unlock the best optical performance possible on the WACP-1. The only possible competition I guess being the Sony 28-60 or the Tamron 28-75F2.8 lenses.

Has anyone had experience using the Sigma 18-35? Does it live up to expectations? How does it compare to other options you may have tried?

When testing the WACP prototypes, I tested the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8-f/2.8 zoom and despite being a much better lens than the Nikon 28-70mm f/3.5-f/4.5 as a stand alone, it was considerably inferior behind the WACP. I’ve not tried it again recently.

But I think many have discovered that the WACP-1 works best with more simple lens designs behind it. Better lenses with more complex optical corrective elements in them, often work less well when the multi element WACP is put in front of them.

That said, it is worth trying all options, but don’t expect the better-on-land lens to work better behind the WACP-1