Sony mirrorless lens recommendations for big animals / wide angle

1 minute ago, Ben-Terje said:

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) 

Sure, no problem. It is not cropped.

- brett

1 hour ago, Isaac Szabo said:

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.

Totally agree with you here. I also understand that I cannot expect perfect corners on a 10mm equivalent solution at f5.6-8 in that small package, but for me the corners looks acceptable, at least from the sample photos I've seen until now. 

Will also appreciate other recommendations if you have, Adam  

8 minutes ago, Ben-Terje said:

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  

No problem, happy to help. 

The two full resolution images I linked to are not cropped in or downsized at all. They are the full 42mp of the A7R II. 

Yes, I'm now using the Nikonos 13mm, which I'm quite happy with. The combination of the small form factor and nearly unrivaled sharpness at large apertures is hard to beat. But getting it to work on Sony mirrorless requires advanced skills (making your own port, aperture gear, etc), so unfortunately it's not an option for many people. 

11 hours ago, Ben-Terje said:

Will also appreciate other recommendations if you have, Adam

So my take on this is that you will get better optical results with a fisheye (like the Canon or Nikon 8-15mm) with an adaptor and a medium sized dome. At 15mm, both these lenses' barrel distortion is not that pronounced and is suitable for using with big animals. WWL is not exactly rectilinear either!

Fisheye lenses will allow more latitude at bigger apertures. 

All the results I have seen with WWL and full frame cameras seem to exhibit (what I would describe as) pretty poor corners. If you are shooting big animals in the blue, this is unlikely to be an issue, but if you introduce corner detail, it is...

If you want great corner performance a nearly rectilinear look with a full frame camera, the choice is still WACP.  Depending on the lens you team it up with, this also gives some zoom through options, making it ideal for big animals.

Is it expensive and heavy? Yes it is, but it still is the very best tool for the job

13 hours ago, Isaac Szabo said:

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.

Well actually the thread is about: Sony mirrorless lens recommendations for big animals / wide angle.
 

10 minutes ago, adamhanlon said:

So my take on this is that you will get better optical results with a fisheye (like the Canon or Nikon 8-15mm) with an adaptor and a medium sized dome. At 15mm, both these lenses' barrel distortion is not that pronounced and is suitable for using with big animals. WWL is not exactly rectilinear either!

Fisheye lenses will allow more latitude at bigger apertures. 

All the results I have seen with WWL and full frame cameras seem to exhibit (what I would describe as) pretty poor corners. If you are shooting big animals in the blue, this is unlikely to be an issue, but if you introduce corner detail, it is...

If you want great corner performance a nearly rectilinear look with a full frame camera, the choice is still WACP.  Depending on the lens you team it up with, this also gives some zoom through options, making it ideal for big animals.

Is it expensive and heavy? Yes it is, but it still is the very best tool for the job

Well actually the thread is about: Sony mirrorless lens recommendations for big animals / wide angle.
 

Thank you Adam!

I realize that how people look at IQ is quite subjective, and I think the only way I'll get the answer on what is best for me is to try out the different solutions. I've got many good answers and sample photos in this forum, and for that I'm very thankful. From that I've narrowed down my options to the WWL-1 with my 28-60 and the Canon 8-15mm with my 6" dome.

If the WWL-1 gives me acceptable IQ (main concern is soft corners at bigger apertures) this solution looks really appealing to me because of the possibility to zoom, and also the option to easily switch to a macro lens. I'm also very happy with the 28-60mm, being a kit lens, and I think it will be a perfect match as long as I get acceptable corners (for me). I have to admit that I'm a bit worried about the corners after testing the UWL-09, but it seems pretty clear that this lens is not comparable to the WWL-1 on a FF camera.

I've seen a lot of great sample photos from the Canon/Nikon 8-15mm on FF cameras. My main concern about this solution is that it can be a bit too wide for me sometimes. I use the A7s iii, and with only 12 MP I don't have much room to crop in in post. I also shoot some video, and as far as I know the autofocus doesn't work in video mode with the Metabones adapter, but this is not a critical thing for me.

Anyway, I've decided to buy both options (the Canon and Metabones I've already found second hand), and try them out for a while. Hopefully I manage to make a decision on which lens to keep, and sell the other.

Regarding the WACP it's not only about weight and prize of the lens itself, I also need to change housing, and the total cost will be too high for me at the moment.

Thanks again for your input, and sorry for bumping into this thread with my questions  (should have kept it in my original post about UWL-09 vs WWL-1 on FF)

I'm going to post about this elsewhere, and it is 
Super resolution will give you all the editing/cropping headroom you need, and the a7s III's lovely big pixels work really well with it. 

The issue is that it will dramatically exaggerate any optical flaws. So while the 28-60 and WWL combination may OK at normal resolution, the 8-15mm will give you much better results.
 

1 hour ago, adamhanlon said:

I'm going to post about this elsewhere, and it is 
Super resolution will give you all the editing/cropping headroom you need, and the a7s III's lovely big pixels work really well with it. 

The issue is that it will dramatically exaggerate any optical flaws. So while the 28-60 and WWL combination may OK at normal resolution, the 8-15mm will give you much better results.
 

Thanks again, Adam!

Based on earlier negative experiences with that kind of technology I'm not used to think that way, but I think you have a very good point her! Seems like AI has taken big steps forward lately, and if Super Resolution really works well, it will for sure be a very convenient tool for my A7s iii images!

I watched your Wetpixel Live episode where you discussed the topic. Very informative (as usual), and I will love to hear/read more about that technology, especially on uw-images!