Sony mirrorless lens recommendations for big animals / wide angle

Hi,

I am switching from my old Nikon set-up (D850) to the Sony A1, and am looking for some advice on wide-angle lenses specifically for big animals underwater (whales, dolphins, sharks, mantas, etc.). 

I was looking at both the 12-24 f2.8 and the 16-35 F2.8. Both look great, and I can't quite figure out which would be the best choice for my specific use case. On the D850 I used to shoot with the 16-35 f4, which I was mostly very happy with. I rarely felt the need for the shorter focal length (I should be so lucky!), but also didn't use the long end of the range very much. Is there any reason why I should go with the 12-24 over the 16-35? Any advice you might have would be much appreciated!

Thanks and regards,

Christian

28-60 + WWL-1 is the way to go.

I would suggest that it depends on your uses - if it's specifically big animals in open water and no straying to other subjects where corner sharpness might be an issue like the occasional wreck dive or reefscapes then both may be suitable.  Typically the corners are not so important if there's only water there.

The 16-35 will take 82mm filters so you could use the Sea & Sea correction lens on it in future if you felt the need for better corners.  The 12-24 will not take filters and at the 12mm end corners may well be an issue - depending on the subject.

The other thing to note is that typically the recommended dome for these big lenses is 230mm - which you may well have been using with the 16-35mm f4 on the D850?  Quite big to travel with of course.

The optical quality of wet lenses is generally regarded as being superior to rectilinears behind domes and they are good to the corners (at least the Nauticam offerings)  even at moderate f-stops.  Typically a full frame 16mm lens would be stopped down to f11-16, while you could use potentially f5.6 -8 on a wet lens.  The wet lenses are expensive but not so bad compared to buying a dome and  a 16-35mm f2.8 and they are a bit more compact which may make for easier handling UW.   the 28-60 lens mentioned is equivalent to a 10-22 lens with a WWL - it does have a little barrel distortion.  The WACP would give you a 10-25mm equivalent, compact but heavy package.  All of tehse are easy on Nauticam - varying degrees of difficulty mounting on other brands, but certainly possible, some brands quite easily - others less so.

In $US prices a 16-35 f2.8 is $2199 plus port extensions etc., a WWL-1B plus 28-60 and N100 45mm macro port is $2684, while WACP with extension and 28-70 sets you back $6000. 

I'm sure Phil Rudin will add his vast experience on these lens choices as well.

Great perspectives. Thanks, lancelot365 and ChrisRoss. I had not thought about the option of going with wet lenses.

I used to own the WWL-1, which I used back in the day when I did my U/W photography with a Sony RX100 in Nauticam housing. But I sold it when I upgraded to the D850... maybe I will come to regret that decision! My one pet peeve with it, though, was that it takes some time to "flood" when getting in the water, which can result in some lost shots in fast free dive encounter scenarios. But I suppose that's an edge case.

I'm mostly into big animals but would like the option of doing reefscapes as well. With my D850, I used the Nauticam housing with the Nauticam N120 8.5" acrylic dome. Would it even be an option to use that with the 16-35 f2.8 or the 12-24? It sounds like WWL-1 + 28-60 + N100 45mm macro port might be my best option, as I'm a bit hesitant to splurge more than I already have on my A1 and the long lenses I use for birding :-).

If you already owned 16-35 and the 8.5 acrylic dome them it might be cheaper to buy the extensions and zoom gear than wwl-1 set. Image quality wise I would say wwl-1 is better at f8 as Chris said.

I used to have both wwl-1 on Rx100 iv and 16-35 on A7R. At the time wwl-1 on full frame the only option is 28mm f2, which is not flexible as a prime lens. Now there is 28-60, the flexibility of wet lenses and the image quality benefits are the key factor for me to go back.  You can also change wwl underwater to cmc/smc to get some descent marco capabilities.

7 hours ago, lancelot365 said:

If you already owned 16-35 and the 8.5 acrylic dome them it might be cheaper to buy the extensions and zoom gear than wwl-1 set. Image quality wise I would say wwl-1 is better at f8 as Chris said.

I used to have both wwl-1 on Rx100 iv and 16-35 on A7R. At the time wwl-1 on full frame the only option is 28mm f2, which is not flexible as a prime lens. Now there is 28-60, the flexibility of wet lenses and the image quality benefits are the key factor for me to go back.  You can also change wwl underwater to cmc/smc to get some descent marco capabilities.

 

The cheapest I believe would be a 28-60 and WWL I think at least at $US prices.  To house the 16-35 you would need $2199 for the lens plus $675 for the N100-N120 adapter and $500 for an extension.  One complication is that the 8.5"acrylic port is not mentioned in the port charts for the 16-35, but it seems to need 20mm less extension on the Nikon port chart.  I would think the smaller cross section of the WWL would also be an advantage free diving? 

If you are concerned about burping the WWL, you could do that on the surface and keep it submerged or there was a solution to add an o-ring to keep the water in between as I recall - people were doing that for split shots.

Thanks much for the recommendations! The 28-60 + the WWL-1 it is, and I'll look into the o-ring as well.

This is a very different set-up than what I would have bought without checking, so I really appreciate your thoughts on this.

Christian

31 minutes ago, Christian_H said:

Thanks much for the recommendations! The 28-60 + the WWL-1 it is, and I'll look into the o-ring as well.

This is a very different set-up than what I would have bought without checking, so I really appreciate your thoughts on this.

Christian

just be aware the maximum equivalent focal length is 22mm - you should be fine as long as that is as much as you need.  the 28-60 becomes approximately a 10-22mm lens.

On 2/1/2022 at 5:30 AM, ChrisRoss said:

All of tehse are easy on Nauticam - varying degrees of difficulty mounting on other brands, but certainly possible, some brands quite easily - others less so.
 

The new WWL-1B has only bayonet mount which might make mounting on other brands difficult. @ChrisRoss - If you do know of anything else mounting it easily, please let me know

Hello
I am a user of the sony a7c Camera Nauticam housing.
My wide-angle lens setting is Sigma AF 15mm F2.8 EX DG Fisheye lens with an MC-11 adapter.

This setting is an alternative to so few Sony e-mount wide-angle lenses.

Various tests were conducted to use the system charts that the Nauticam does not have, and I am currently using the SEA&SEA NX Dome for weight optimization.

On 2/3/2022 at 6:42 PM, Christian_H said:

Thanks much for the recommendations! The 28-60 + the WWL-1 it is, and I'll look into the o-ring as well.

This is a very different set-up than what I would have bought without checking, so I really appreciate your thoughts on this.

Christian

Hi Christian,

I will chime in late and just say that I think you will be happy with your selection of the 28-60 with WWL-1B. I like the Nauticam bayonet mount and have not had the problems with air bubbles between the rear glass and port glass. 

If you are not a uwpmag.com reader I suggest you signup and look through the back issues section, enter my name Phil Rudin into the search engine and you will find lots of my articles for Sony cameras, lenses and housing choices. These are all free PDF downloads.

You may also want to consider that the wet wide lenses do not work well for split images and if you are into that you will still need a dome port and wide lens.

hackcat's premiss that Sony E-mount has "few" options for wide-angle is just wrong. Sony has more native W/A lenses than another mirrorless camera in the market including excellent 24mm, 18mm, 14mm, 16-35mm, 17-28mm, 12-24mm and more. You will also find that lenses like the Tamron 17-28mm F/2.8 have become my choice over the more expensive 16-35mm F/2.8. I have also reviewed 24mm, 18mm and 14mm F/2.8 lenses from Rokinon and while they don't have excellent weather sealing they have very good optics for U/W work.  

On 2/8/2022 at 10:32 PM, vaidhy said:

The new WWL-1B has only bayonet mount which might make mounting on other brands difficult. @ChrisRoss - If you do know of anything else mounting it easily, please let me know

I think you will find the larger problem is that so far most housing manufactures are not supporting the 28-60 with a flat port. Nauticam makes a custom port for use with the 28-60 and WWL-1B. Marelux has the port in development and it should be announced later this month. Seafrogs port has the 67mm threads but the Nauticam bayonet adapter won't work for WWL-1B. The older WWL-1, same optics has the 67mm threads and may work although I have not seen conformation for that. I think most folks buying a budget housing will also look for a budget wet lens and several are made.

On 2/1/2022 at 12:30 PM, ChrisRoss said:

The optical quality of wet lenses is generally regarded as being superior to rectilinears behind domes and they are good to the corners (at least the Nauticam offerings)  even at moderate f-stops.  Typically a full frame 16mm lens would be stopped down to f11-16, while you could use potentially f5.6 -8 on a wet lens.

Hi Chris!

I'm really close to buying a WWL-1 for my Sony FF w/28-60mm, but after buying the UWL-09 I was very disappointed and I'm a bit afraid to do another "mistake"... (but I hope, and believe that the WWL-1 is a lot better for FF)

I've searched a lot on this forum, trying to find pictures taken with the WWL-1/B on a FF camera at lower apertures (f5.6-8), but the few I found is not the best to evaluate corner sharpness (either open water or few details in the corners). 

Do you (or anyone else, if you read this) have any "proper" pictures taken with the WWL-1/B on a FF camera at lower apertures that you want to share? Preferably at 28mm.

Thanks  

2 hours ago, Ben-Terje said:

Hi Chris!

I'm really close to buying a WWL-1 for my Sony FF w/28-60mm, but after buying the UWL-09 I was very disappointed and I'm a bit afraid to do another "mistake"... (but I hope, and believe that the WWL-1 is a lot better for FF)

I've searched a lot on this forum, trying to find pictures taken with the WWL-1/B on a FF camera at lower apertures (f5.6-8), but the few I found is not the best to evaluate corner sharpness (either open water or few details in the corners). 

Do you (or anyone else, if you read this) have any "proper" pictures taken with the WWL-1/B on a FF camera at lower apertures that you want to share? Preferably at 28mm.

Thanks  

A little googling helps, here's one link:  https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4493315\

It's with the 28mm f2, but should be representative of what's possible with the 28-60.

4 hours ago, Ben-Terje said:

I've searched a lot on this forum, trying to find pictures taken with the WWL-1/B on a FF camera at lower apertures (f5.6-8), but the few I found is not the best to evaluate corner sharpness (either open water or few details in the corners). 

Do you (or anyone else, if you read this) have any "proper" pictures taken with the WWL-1/B on a FF camera at lower apertures that you want to share? Preferably at 28mm.

Did you get the full resolution f/8 example I gave you a link to in your other thread? Here's another example, this time at f/5.6:

Here's a link to the full resolution image.

16 hours ago, Ben-Terje said:

Hi Chris!

I'm really close to buying a WWL-1 for my Sony FF w/28-60mm, but after buying the UWL-09 I was very disappointed and I'm a bit afraid to do another "mistake"... (but I hope, and believe that the WWL-1 is a lot better for FF)

I've searched a lot on this forum, trying to find pictures taken with the WWL-1/B on a FF camera at lower apertures (f5.6-8), but the few I found is not the best to evaluate corner sharpness (either open water or few details in the corners). 

Do you (or anyone else, if you read this) have any "proper" pictures taken with the WWL-1/B on a FF camera at lower apertures that you want to share? Preferably at 28mm.

Thanks  

I just got back from 9 days of diving in Palau. Here is a picture from an a7r4 at 28mm f/8 inside Chandelier Cave. Note that the JPG export is only at 20% quality to reduce file size to 3.5MB. I've boosted the shadows a bit to get more light in the corners.

I was very happy with the WWL-1B and 28-60 lens on the trip. Very versatile. 

I know it is all subjective, but to my eye,  both the images above are really soft in the corners at screen resolution...

 

28 minutes ago, adamhanlon said:

I know it is all subjective, but to my eye,  both the images above are really soft in the corners at screen resolution...

No one claimed the corners were sharp. Ben's question is whether the WWL-1 performs better than the UWL-09 at f/5.6-f/8. If you take a look at his UWL-09 example, the answer is obvious. If you have a better recommendation for him for a wide angle lens for available light shots on Sony full frame, please share. I personally suspect the Canon 8-15mm via adapter might outperform the WWL-1, though I don't have the experience with that setup to know for sure. And of course there's the WACP, but that's not an option for many people due to cost/size.

19 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

A little googling helps, here's one link:  https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4493315\

It's with the 28mm f2, but should be representative of what's possible with the 28-60.

Thanks Chris! Seems like some of the pictures are cropped in a bit, but still this was very helpful! The more I research, the more convinced I get that the WWL-1/B is way better then the UWL-09 on a FF. Think I'm ready to pull the trigger now  

17 hours ago, Isaac Szabo said:

Did you get the full resolution f/8 example I gave you a link to in your other thread? Here's another example, this time at f/5.6:

Here's a link to the full resolution image.

Thanks Isaac! When I look back I see that I got your image in my other thread, but for some reason I didn't view it the first time... 

Your images really helps me, and like I said to Chris, I'm convinced now that the WWL-1/B is a lot better than the UWL-09 on a FF. I assume the images are not cropped in?

I also read in another thread that you have modified a Nikonos RS 13mm to work with Sony including autofocus ("the Seacm way"). THAT sounds like the perfect solution for me, but I guess it's not for everyone to do that kind of modifications... As I am freediving, and only use natural light, the small form factor would give me less drag, and the possibility to shoot at 2.8 with acceptable IQ sounds just amazing! Does the autofocus also work in video mode?

Anyway, I think the WWL-1 will also fit me very well  

6 hours ago, TmxDiver said:

I just got back from 9 days of diving in Palau. Here is a picture from an a7r4 at 28mm f/8 inside Chandelier Cave. Note that the JPG export is only at 20% quality to reduce file size to 3.5MB. I've boosted the shadows a bit to get more light in the corners.

I was very happy with the WWL-1B and 28-60 lens on the trip. Very versatile. 

 

Thanks! Even another evidence that the WWL-1 works better on FF than the UWL-09. Have to ask you as well, is the image cropped in? (Doesn't look like it is)