Performance of WACP1 with different lenses/camera systems?

52 minutes ago, Alex_Mustard said:

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

Same could be said for many lenses that perform well on land - but no so good UW.  Sure it's interesting to speculate and try out new lenses but in the end if there's a proven solution it's hard to argue with.

15 hours ago, dreifish said:

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?

Regarding the Sigma 18-35mm F/1.8 my takeaway is that I don't think Nauticam would have made a WACP-1 specifically for this one lens if it did not have excellent optics and above water reviews I have read support that finding. The 18-35 lens is however for a limited segment of the rapidly changing U/W photo community in that it is for ageing APS-C DSLR cameras only while WACP-1 works on everything from M43 to medium format. WACP-1 also works with both DSLR and mirrorless cameras from Canon, Nikon, Sony and others. Next since the Sigma lens may compare favorably to full frame lenses from Canon, Nikon and Sony and that would not be supported by DXOMarks reviews, you have no way of knowing how it would stickup against those lenses on cameras with sensors in the 45 to 60MP range. The higher the MP numbers the more flaws are exposed in the lens.

Regarding Alex Mustard's observation that simpler lens designs may work better with WACP-1 this seems to be the case with both the Nikon 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5 and the Sony 28-60 f/4-5.6 which both have eight elements in seven groups while the Sigma lens has seventeen elements in twelve groups.

Last the Nauticam port charts indicate that the WACP-1 (part #85202) designed for Sigma 18-35 out preformed the WACP-1(85201)  with extensions so if you own this lens and never intend to go mirrorless or move from DSLR APS-C or try other lenses the this should be your choice.        

3 minutes ago, Phil Rudin said:

Regarding the Sigma 18-35mm F/1.8 my takeaway is that I don't think Nauticam would have made a WACP-1 specifically for this one lens if it did not have excellent optics and above water reviews I have read support that finding. The 18-35 lens is however for a limited segment of the rapidly changing U/W photo community in that it is for ageing APS-C DSLR cameras only while WACP-1 works on everything from M43 to medium format. WACP-1 also works with both DSLR and mirrorless cameras from Canon, Nikon, Sony and others. Next since the Sigma lens may compare favorably to full frame lenses from Canon, Nikon and Sony and that would not be supported by DXOMarks reviews, you have no way of knowing how it would stickup against those lenses on cameras with sensors in the 45 to 60MP range. The higher the MP numbers the more flaws are exposed in the lens.

Regarding Alex Mustard's observation that simpler lens designs may work better with WACP-1 this seems to be the case with both the Nikon 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5 and the Sony 28-60 f/4-5.6 which both have eight elements in seven groups while the Sigma lens has seventeen elements in twelve groups.

Last the Nauticam port charts indicate that the WACP-1 (part #85202) designed for Sigma 18-35 out preformed the WACP-1(85201)  with extensions so if you own this lens and never intend to go mirrorless or move from DSLR APS-C or try other lenses the this should be your choice.        

 

I have been curious about this as well for the same rationale outlined by Phil. Some vid cameras use crop sensors and this may be the biggest market for the port. Sigma should have come out with this lens when the D2X was current and not 2013!!! Nikon, as well, was late with their DX macro lenses!!!

On 9/23/2021 at 12:22 PM, Phil Rudin said:

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. 

Phil,

Have you used this lens / adapter combination with the WACP-1 on your Nikon Z mount? How is the AF and IQ? I am interested in the zoom range of this combination for the flexibility it provides (AOV 130 - 59 degrees). I am considering the WACP-1 for the IQ but it is actually heavier than my Zen 230mm glass dome for travel. 

Thanks,

Larry

Hi Larry, 

First of all I don't own any of the Nikon Z cameras so the reviews I do are based on the lenses that are provided to me by the housing manufacture who's equipment I am reviewing. In the case of my Z6 review I had the Z14-30 F/4 and the AF-S 8-15 fisheye, these are both excellent lenses for U/W use with the Z camera systems. I also used a borrowed 82mm S&S correction lens with the 14-30mm and a "compact" eight inch port. The result were not at all good proving that the S&S is not a one size fits all solution for every lens. The S&S correction lens is most well suited to full frame lenses in the 14 to18mm range with the 230mm port.

I have used the WACP-1 with the Sony FE 28-60mm, FE 28-70mm and the Tamron 17-28mm. The two Sony lenses zoom all the way through while the Tamron lens is limited. So 130-69 degrees, 130-59 and 130-90 for the Tamron. The WACP-1 without question beats any full frame lens I have tested on any camera system with a 230mm dome port.

Currently the Nikon Z system chart lists three lenses that will work with the WACP-1 Z-35mm F/1.8 110 degrees, Z 24-70 F/4 130-121 degrees and the Techart Pro adapter plus Sony 28-70mm F/3.5-5.6 130-59 degrees, the only full zoom through lens. 

I have family in Belize and own property there. Great diving including the San Pedro area. 

20 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

Regarding the Sigma 18-35mm F/1.8 my takeaway is that I don't think Nauticam would have made a WACP-1 specifically for this one lens if it did not have excellent optics and above water reviews I have read support that finding. The 18-35 lens is however for a limited segment of the rapidly changing U/W photo community in that it is for ageing APS-C DSLR cameras only while WACP-1 works on everything from M43 to medium format. WACP-1 also works with both DSLR and mirrorless cameras from Canon, Nikon, Sony and others. Next since the Sigma lens may compare favorably to full frame lenses from Canon, Nikon and Sony and that would not be supported by DXOMarks reviews, you have no way of knowing how it would stickup against those lenses on cameras with sensors in the 45 to 60MP range. The higher the MP numbers the more flaws are exposed in the lens.

Regarding Alex Mustard's observation that simpler lens designs may work better with WACP-1 this seems to be the case with both the Nikon 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5 and the Sony 28-60 f/4-5.6 which both have eight elements in seven groups while the Sigma lens has seventeen elements in twelve groups.

Last the Nauticam port charts indicate that the WACP-1 (part #85202) designed for Sigma 18-35 out preformed the WACP-1(85201)  with extensions so if you own this lens and never intend to go mirrorless or move from DSLR APS-C or try other lenses the this should be your choice.        

 

Alex's observation that the wet optics may work better with simpler lens designs behind them certainly seems plausible. Lens design is a complex set of tradeoffs from what I understand, and it's worth keeping in mind that what we're doing when we stick a WACP or even a simple dome port on the front of a land lens to use underwater is essentially adding one or more optical elements to the lens design. How they all are going to interact together and the final optical image quality is not always predictable a-priori. That's why it would be nice to hear from people who have actually tried out the lens with the WACP-1, especially as compared to other lenses. The fact that nauticam has made a dedicated port for it makes me think there's something worth investigating there.

Finally, I wouldn't dismiss the lens as irrelevant now that we APS-c DSLRs are a dying breed. It can certainly be adopted to mirrorless. I have been using it with a focal reducer on the Panasonic GH5 for topside shooting with great results.  Also, on the video side of things at least, there's very interesting APSc crop cameras (Canon C70, c300, Red Komodo, z-cam s6). Not to mention that some full frame cameras can film in an APS-c crop that actually may be the optimal quality/resolution/frame rate and depth of field for underwater use. For example, the Canon R5 and R5C can shoot 5.7k60p footage in APS-C crop, with pixel-to-pixel readout, the Panasonic S5 and S1H only does 4k60p in APS-C crop mode. And so on.

First of all I did not say that the lens is irrelevant. Secondly I am well aware of the fact that many video and highbred cameras shoot video in sub full frame formats. 

The fact remains that you aren't really gaining much if anything using the Sigma lens in most cases than you would be using other lenses like the Canon FE-S 18-55mm which zooms from 123-50 degrees rather than the 123-79.5 that the Sigma does. For example you could be using the outstanding Olympus 12-40mm on your Panasonic GH5 with the standard WACP-1 and you would have a complete zoom through from 130-57 degrees. 

Regarding full frame cameras it would be hard for me to imagine anyone buying both lenses, one for stills and one for video in APS-C. 

Again the Sigma 18-35mm F/1.8 lens looks like an excellent above water lens for APS-C DSLR cameras.

On 9/29/2021 at 2:57 PM, 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.

Hi Helgromite! Very valuable data point about the 28-70 II + WACP-1 combo for video, and also on the optical quality of the 28-80. 

Have you by any chance tried to use the RF 15-35F2.8 or 14-35F4  + WACP-2 as an alternative? Any reflections if you have? Seems like for Canon RF video shooters, we might be forced into this larger, heavier and more expensive combo for best image results.

On 4/23/2022 at 5:06 PM, Phil Rudin said:

The fact remains that you aren't really gaining much if anything using the Sigma lens in most cases than you would be using other lenses like the Canon FE-S 18-55mm which zooms from 123-50 degrees rather than the 123-79.5 that the Sigma does. For example you could be using the outstanding Olympus 12-40mm on your Panasonic GH5 with the standard WACP-1 and you would have a complete zoom through from 130-57 degrees. 

Well, if I purchase the WACP-1 for use with a Canon R5 for instance, I don't think it's a huge investment to use it with two different lenses -- a full frame 28-70 II for photos and 8k30p video and a EF-S 18-55mm or Sigma 18-35mm in APS-C crop mode to film 5.7k60p video. It's an additional investment in lenses, zoom gears and extension rings to be sure, but perhaps worth it to some if there's clear image quality benefits or benefits to shooting wide open at F1.8 behind the WACP-1. The IQ or wider aperture might be enough for some to give up the long range of the zoom from 35-55mm.

In my experience, I rarely shot at the long end of the zoom range with the  Panasonic 14-42mm behind the WWL-1.. the images always seemed quite muddy and low contrast to me once zooming past ~20mm (40mm full frame equivalent). Now, that could be that particular lens/wet lens combo, or just too much water between the camera and the subject, so I'm not drawing any definitive conclusions here, but would be curious to hear from others. 

Do you find the 80-50 degree range useful and high quality when using longer lenses with the WACP-1/2 or WWL? Or do you get better results shoot with a wide angle or normal zoom behind a dome port in this range?

Secondly, has anyone tried the EF-S 18-55 with the WACP-1? How are the results? Comparisons with the Sigma 18-35 would of course be appreciated, if you've shot both combinations.

First dreifish the "huge" investment I was noting is that the Sigma 18-35 F/1.8 is the only lens that works with WACP-1 for Sigma 18-35mm F/1.8. For all other lenses you would need WACP-1 in the N120 configuration or the N100 configuration. As a result you would need two WACP-1's to add the additional lenses you have listed above (28-70 F/3.5-5.6 II (FF) and EF-S 18-55 of Sigma 18-35mm F/1.8 APS-C without the image quality of the Sigma only WACP-1). 

Secondly Nauticam has tested both the EF-S 18-55 F/3.5-5.6 and Sigma 18-35mm F/1.8 and the best choice is the F/1.8 lens when used with the custom WACP-1 (#85202) for only this lens. If you use WACP-1 (#85201) which works with both lenses but different extensions the results are not increased using the F/1.8 lens on APS-C cameras.

For full frame on R5 the best choice when using the WACP-1 (#85201) is the 28-70 F/3.5-4.5 II with extension 25 over the 28-80 F/3.5-5.6 II according to the Nauticam port charts updated yesterday. 

I would also be excited about the new Canon RF-S 18-45mm F/4.6-6.3 IS APS-C lens for video or stills in crop mode.This lens is around 28-70 in 35mm terms and I am guessing it will find its way onto the WACP-1 list of lenses going forward.

3 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

 I would also be excited about the new Canon RF-S 18-45mm F/4.6-6.3 IS APS-C lens for video or stills in crop mode.This lens is around 28-70 in 35mm terms and I am guessing it will find its way onto the WACP-1 list of lenses going forward.

  

 

 

This is brilliant, Phil. I hadn't given much thought to the new Canon RF APS-C lens, but one thing of note is that it has a filter thread of just 49mm (and an entrance pupil even smaller than that). Wonder if this means it might also work with the WWL-1 behind the right port? 

The Sony FE 28-60 has a filter diameter of 40.5mm, but the glass front element seems to have a wider diameter than on the RF-S18-45.

Does anyone know what would happen if I were to use a Sony FE 28-70mm with a WACP-1 with a 35mm distance ring instead of the 20mm that's on the port chart? From my admittedly naive understanding of optics I'd assume I'd lose a tiny amount of corner sharpness at worst?

1 hour ago, coinee said:

Does anyone know what would happen if I were to use a Sony FE 28-70mm with a WACP-1 with a 35mm distance ring instead of the 20mm that's on the port chart? From my admittedly naive understanding of optics I'd assume I'd lose a tiny amount of corner sharpness at worst?

It may or may vignette if it is too far from the WACP, you would have to test it find out most likely.  But having spent all that money on the WACP I  think I would also buy the recommended extension.

Coiner-Nauticam spent years to developing this excellent water contact optic and tested it with verity of lenses and extension combinations. Using any extension not recommended by Nauticam is only going to degrade the image quality and in some cases damage the wet lens. When you consider the cost of the WACP-1 the 20mm extension is a small price to pay for image quality. 

Heh, it's not about the money, that ship has sailed a long long time ago... I would prefer not to waste aluminium though, we live with finite resources after all.

Damage is physically impossible, but some image degradation might happen. I'll just test it and will report back.

Buy used! Someone is selling a 20mm extension on the forum I believe

3 hours ago, waterpixel said:

Buy used! Someone is selling a 20mm extension on the forum I believe

Great idea, thanks!

Hey so I finally took the plunge and got myself the WACP-1. I haven't had chance to take it diving or underwater yet. However I just played around with the wacp on land to figure out the focusing on air and to my surprise it really focused well though it didn't produce a crisp image through out the frame but I personally feel this is pretty good for a lens that was said won't focus in air. Ive attached a couple of pictures just to show the result. Would these pictures qualify for a good focusing example for the wacp1 in air? Would love to hear others thoughts on this, could this be blind luck or if the lens can focus like this on land can't it be used for split photos too? 

Camera- Canon R5

Lens ef 28-70 3.5-4.5

I'm sorry but the pictures Ive just uploaded has come out really bad when I uploaded. It seems to have lowered the resolution/ quality of the pictures. Any way I could upload full resolution files? 

Sure - just depends how big they are!