sigma 16mm vs sony 10-18

hey all

lately I got the FML A6 dome and 2 ring extension for my housing (Fantasea FA6500 + sony a6300) and now I'm trying to decide which wide lens to get:

1. Sigma 16mm f/1.4 DC DN

2. Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS

I'd like to hear from people who own one of these lenses their opinion on it.

thank you

I don't have the Sigma 16mm, but I've been shooting the 10-18mm with my A6300 for a few years now, and it's noticeably wider than my 16-50mm at its widest. Here is 10-18mm @ 10mm in a pool:

And 16-50mm @ 16mm from the same point:

As for the f/1.4 fast aperture, I don't recall ever shooting wider than f/8 underwater anyway, so it's kind of wasted.

3 minutes ago, Barmaglot said:

I don't have the Sigma 16mm, but I've been shooting the 10-18mm with my A6300 for a few years now, and it's noticeably wider than my 16-50mm at its widest. Here is 10-18mm @ 10mm in a pool:

And 16-50mm @ 16mm from the same point:

As for the f/1.4 fast aperture, I don't recall ever shooting wider than f/8 underwater anyway, so it's kind of wasted.

do you use the 10-18 out of the water as well or only in water?

To be perfectly honest, out of water I mostly use my phone. On the rare occasions that I use my camera outside its housing, yes, I do use the 10-18mm every now and then.

2 minutes ago, Barmaglot said:

To be perfectly honest, out of water I mostly use my phone. On the rare occasions that I use my camera outside its housing, yes, I do use the 10-18mm every now and then.

thank you!

On a slight tangent, I'm thinking about getting rid of the 10-18mm and dome altogether and transitioning to 16-50mm + WWL-C. Just waiting for a used WWL-C to pop up with a decent price.

Just now, Barmaglot said:

On a slight tangent, I'm thinking about getting rid of the 10-18mm and dome altogether and transitioning to 16-50mm + WWL-C. Just waiting for a used WWL-C to pop up with a decent price.

rn I have the sony 16-50 with the FML flat port and fantasea ucl-09f macro lens.

I was thinking about the versatile thing but it comes on the expense of picture quality (I'm sure the 10-18 is sharper than the 16-50)

so why do you want to change? do you want to be more versatile on your dive?

Versatility + image quality. @Phil Rudin's tests show WWL-1/WWL-C to be sharper across the frame than any regular lens/dome port combination. Also, the eight-inch dome takes up quite a bit of packing space.

Just now, Barmaglot said:

Versatility + image quality. @Phil Rudin's tests show WWL-1/WWL-C to be sharper across the frame than any regular lens/dome port combination. Also, the eight-inch dome takes up quite a bit of packing space.

so you're saying the 16-50mm + WWL-1/WWL-C is sharper than the 10-18 + dome?

do you use Fantasea Bayonet system or any of the similar ones?

1 minute ago, sarthur1 said:

so you're saying the 16-50mm + WWL-1/WWL-C is sharper than the 10-18 + dome?

IIRC Phil tested WWL-1B with 28-60mm on Sony full-frame (A1/A7RIV) and found that it outperformed any lens and port combination except WACP.-1/WACP-2. It stands to reason that 16-50mm/WWL-C will perform as well or near enough, especially on a lower-resolution sensor like I have.

13 minutes ago, sarthur1 said:

do you use Fantasea Bayonet system or any of the similar ones?

Right now I'm using a SeaFrogs housing and magnetic rings to attach a close-up lens, but WWL-C comes with Nauticam bayonet built-in, so I will need Nauticam's M67 port to bayonet adapter, two bayonet holders for arms, and a bayonet to M67 lens adapter for the close-up lens.

4 hours ago, sarthur1 said:

so you're saying the 16-50mm + WWL-1/WWL-C is sharper than the 10-18 + dome?

do you use Fantasea Bayonet system or any of the similar ones?

That is the generally accepted opinion, the problem UW is that domes degrade image quality.  The WWL is designed as a water contact optic and gets much better results and you can shoot it down to f5.6 or less, while the 10-18 needs to be stopped down to the f11-13 range at the 10mm end to get good corners.

If you already have the dome I think it's no contest the 10-18, mainly because 16mm on an APS-C camera is not that wide for underwater work. 

15 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

The WWL is designed as a water contact optic and gets much better results and you can shoot it down to f5.6 or less, while the 10-18 needs to be stopped down to the f11-13 range at the 10mm end to get good corners.

If you already have the dome I think it's no contest the 10-18, mainly because 16mm on an APS-C camera is not that wide for underwater work. 

Is it specific the WWL or any other wide lens will work?

Let's say the Fantasea UWL-09PRO or 09f.

I'm asking because as much as I'd like to change my whole gear to Nauticam gear, money is an issue here.

6 hours ago, Barmaglot said:

Versatility + image quality. @Phil Rudin's tests show WWL-1/WWL-C to be sharper across the frame than any regular lens/dome port combination. Also, the eight-inch dome takes up quite a bit of packing space.

This "quote" is not what I said. I have never used the WWL-C with any system. I have reviewed both the WWL-1 and WWL-1B using Sony full frame cameras with the Sony FE 28mm F/2 and the Sony FE 28-60 kit lens. Full frame cameras tend to have softer corner sharpness at a given F/number v. sub-FF cameras. I also used the WWL-1 prototype lens with Olympus M43 cameras over a year before the lens was offered for sale. In both cases the water contact lenses have out preformed the lens and port combinations I have tested with the same cameras. 

I have also said that the image quality from WACP and WACP II emceed both the WWL-1B and all lens and port combo's tested. 

1 hour ago, Phil Rudin said:

This "quote" is not what I said. I have never used the WWL-C with any system.

My bad, sorry, I must've misremembered.

8 hours ago, sarthur1 said:

Is it specific the WWL or any other wide lens will work?

Let's say the Fantasea UWL-09PRO or 09f.

 

I'm asking because as much as I'd like to change my whole gear to Nauticam gear, money is an issue here.

The WWL has the best optics, You can look at some comparison shots here:

https://www.housingcamera.com/blog/product-reviews/the-ultimate-wet-lens-sample-post

bear in mind that a lot of shots are on 1"sensor cameras like RX-100.  Any corner softness will be worse on the larger APS-C sensor.    I don't know if you can shoot wider apertures with the Fantasea lenses.  The images all have EXIF data so you can see what aperture and focal length they were shot at.  Note that zooming in will generally improve the corners compared to the widest settings.  If you have firefox you can install EXIF reader add-ons which display the data in a popup when you right click.

If your 16-50 flat port is suitable for the Fantasea lenses you can also use the WWL on it, you just need to buy the Nauticam bayonet adapter for your port and you can use the WWL on your system.