New RF 14-35 f4L, anyone tried?

On 3/1/2022 at 1:31 PM, adamhanlon said:

OK-well how about a Tokina 10-17mm fisheye (second hand so relatively inexpensive) with either your 4" or a 6" dome. These could be acrylic domes so no problems with buoyancy. 

Adam, can you please explain me why Tokina 10-17 mm works with a small dome and my Sigma 10 mm need a big one? I checked Nauticam charts and it's sadly true, they say my Sigma 10 mm should have a 8.5'' dome, that's why it is looking so bad in my 4''!

10 hours ago, stillviking said:

Adam, can you please explain me why Tokina 10-17 mm works with a small dome and my Sigma 10 mm need a big one? I checked Nauticam charts and it's sadly true, they say my Sigma 10 mm should have a 8.5'' dome, that's why it is looking so bad in my 4''!

It is not clear why Nauticam only recommend an 8.5"dome on the 10mm, housing manufacturers generally test lenses in domes before publishing port recommendations - it probably comes down to the particular characteristics of the lens, which really cannot be predicted until someone tries it in a dome.  The 10-17 Tokina however has been widely used in small domes on APS-C cameras and is a known good performer.    I would also note that just because a dome is listed in a port chart is no guarantee it will be sharp to the corners.

What housing system do you have for the 7D?  Are you considering the same system for the EOS R? 

19 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

It is not clear why Nauticam only recommend an 8.5"dome on the 10mm, housing manufacturers generally test lenses in domes before publishing port recommendations - it probably comes down to the particular characteristics of the lens, which really cannot be predicted until someone tries it in a dome.  The 10-17 Tokina however has been widely used in small domes on APS-C cameras and is a known good performer.    I would also note that just because a dome is listed in a port chart is no guarantee it will be sharp to the corners.

What housing system do you have for the 7D?  Are you considering the same system for the EOS R? 

It really feels like some kind of magic.

At the moment I have a surf waterhousing, so for now, yes, until I make a bigger investment!

On 3/2/2022 at 2:04 PM, ColdDarkDiver said:

While not helpful in the short term, I have a 230 dome and housing on order to use with the 14-35.  I will post results when I get it underwater, which will be in a few weeks. I decided to give that setup a go as even if the 14mm is not great behind a dome, if it is solid from 16-35 on a full frame mirrorless it is a good choice for R series canon.  But I will report back here, if that is the case when I get it underwater.

So if you are not in a rush, I can provide the information you want.

Any news for us?

22 hours ago, stillviking said:

Any news for us?

Not yet.  The new housing was held up for a bit.  It should be here this week or so and I have some pool time coming up with open water shortly there after.  I'll reply in your other thread too, but I bought a RF 16 to see how it works for a smaller package when diving with either a 180 and 230 dome. 

2 hours ago, ColdDarkDiver said:

Not yet.  The new housing was held up for a bit.  It should be here this week or so and I have some pool time coming up with open water shortly there after.  I'll reply in your other thread too, but I bought a RF 16 to see how it works for a smaller package when diving with either a 180 and 230 dome. 

Perfect!! That's all I needed!

I wanted to share some initial impressions of shooting the 14-35.  This was a pool dive (open water coming) shot largely ambient or with some video lights so I bumped up the ISO to keep shutter speed reasonable.  230mm dome and Canon R5 in Marelux housing and dome port system with the correct (specified) extension. 

Overall from a shooting perspective, this was very easy to use. Focusing was too fast to notice and in all regards there was no annoying hunting or anything like that. I was largely using ISO to modify shutter speed and with IBIS plus lens IS most of the shutter speeds were pretty easy to work with.  It focuses close and without thinking about it.  So from a “ease of use” it had zero issues.

Not surprisingly, this is a rectilinear lens in a dome.  It was very soft in the corners when pretty wide open (I shot it from F4 to F22).  This was much more apparent at 14mm than 35 (which is a shock to no one). 

Here is a lovely photo of the pool wall at f14 at 14mm

Looking at corner sharpness, for me it seemed pretty acceptable (Remembering that this is a 14mm lens on a 45 mpix camera).  Center sharpness seemed spot on for the lens and F14 and above looked pretty good. It is easy to nudge to a happy place in post even if it looks a bit soft out of the camera. There was a wee bit of chromatic aberration available in the upper left corner in a few of the images that you can see at 100% crop but not otherwise. I also took these in raw and did very little post processing, the jpgs looked better but I wanted to post what they looked like relatively unadulterated (but acknowledging that the R5 and this lens already do a bit of inbody magic even when shooting in raw). While I don’t show it, I also did post process images how I would if I wanted to use them for something, and they are very workable. 

Here is the worst of the corners at 100% crop in the above image:

And for those intersted: How things look not at 14mm - here is 27mm (f11)

and 35mm (F11)

It is really hard for me to judge how these sorts of shots translate into real world image quality.  Not many rectilinear lenses go to 14 and that plus IS makes this a really interesting lens. The 14-35 is much more cost effective and smaller that than the 15-35 and I haven’t played with the 15-35 nor really large domes much before.  I am sure the more seasoned people on the forum can provide some input on whether the above indicates anything about whether this lens "works" behind a dome or doesn't.  Here is just a snapshot showing the perspective possible and I think this is going to be a fun lens.

I know people are interested in the rf 16mm and I am going to take that out next.

This was also my first dive with this camera setup.  The R5 is a daunting beast of menu’s and it will take a lot of time to figure out how to use it most effectively. The housing was a pleasure to use and I love having the ability to have one dial for aperture, one for F stop and 1 for iso for using in manual mode.

I will post more images from this camera and lens combination going forward.  Including how much one gives up to use it behind a 180mm dome but thought I would share some initial images.  From my perspective, I am happy with the lens enough to keep putting it through its paces.  I am also really looking forward to getting it in the ocean to see how real world images look rather than pool walls. 

Hope this is helpful.  

Wow ColdDarkDiver, that's a real quality post here! Looks a great lens!

Please keep us updated with your tests. Is it possible to put a link to the full-resolution photos?

On 3/27/2022 at 5:29 PM, ColdDarkDiver said:

Not yet.  The new housing was held up for a bit.  It should be here this week or so and I have some pool time coming up with open water shortly there after.  I'll reply in your other thread too, but I bought a RF 16 to see how it works for a smaller package when diving with either a 180 and 230 dome. 

Hello Cold and Dark I have been testing some lenses not yet listed on the Marelux port charts for Sony and you may find this helpful. Using the Zeiss Batis 18mm F/2.8 with the 180mm dome port good corner sharpness begins at F/13 you could get away with F/11 but it is iffy against a flat pool wall. Same for the Tamron 17-28mm F/2.8 which works very well in 230 and 180mm but again in the 180mm you need to start at F/13 or above. It also shot both lenses with the Sea & Sea 77mm conversion lens often talked about on this site. With the 18mm it made things worse and with the 17-28mm I did not see much difference. The S&S lens is clearly best used with a 230mm dome.

I suspect that the Canon 16mm should dealt about the same results behind the 180mm with best results starting at F/13.

The attached review on the first page appears to have been done with the Ikelite "eight inch" DL compact dome. This is a dome I have used several times with different lenses and it is best suited to fisheye lenses like the Canon 8-15mm and not to wide rectilinear lenses. The DL full eight inch dome is better for the wide lenses.

I have also used the Marelux 230mm dome with the Sony FE 12-24mm F/2.8 and again you need to start at F/13 and above for best results. Like your 14-35 lens sometimes it is better to zoom in a bit say 16mm range for best corners but other times the 12mm works fine even in the F10-F/11 range if corners are not pronounced in the image. 

I think the Canon RF 14-35 F/4L is an excellent choice for the R5 in the 230mm dome and you can always add the S&S conversion lens if you can find one.   

Thanks for the info Phil.  I think the Rf 16 will be a small aperature specialist or have to be run in 1.5 crop mode with the 180mm. Nothing like actually trying it in the water though and I will let everyone know how it works. I worry that it is so short that it won't be able to be positioned well in the port for optimum corner sharpness. In any case, I like having a backup lens that may not be as great as the main lens (14-35)  but still will work if in the middle of the ocean if my main lens decides it wants to fail (or falls in the ocean or many of the other fates of gear on a boat). 

I think zooming just a wee bit in on the 14-35 will produce the best images. For top side shooting,  I have a 100-400 L (gen 1) and that lens always got meh reviews, but it was excellent at 390 just not great at 400.  Sometimes that slight zoom shift can make all the difference.

I have been interested in the S&S corrective lens and that may be a way to go.  For the 16mm it seems like the chances of it working are slight.  The front element on the 16mm is soooo small that I can't imagine that it would play well with a ~diopter that is designed to correct a 77 or 82 mm front element.

In any case, thanks for the insight (and all the insight you provide in your magazine - I read it all the time).  

And Still Viking, thanks for the kind words!  Any particular ones you want at full resolution?  Here is the 14mm (showing the lenses worst) but I can also try and link the raw file if you are interested (FYI it is 25 mb).

Thank you for your interest in the magazine.

Regarding the 77mm S&S correction lens I have used it with 67mm and 72mm step up rings on several lenses with mixed results. For sure it works better in a 230mm port than in a 180mm port. In no way do I think it will work on the 16mm lens simply because the filter thread is too small. 

Regarding using the 16mm with a dome port in the Marelux housing I think you will be able to use it with both the 230mm and 180mm ports with the proper extension. I have used the Rokinon 18mm in a Nauticam housing with the 180mm port and a 20mm extension. You can look up my review on the lens I am sure I used F/numbers in the F/10/11 range that I was happy with. I like the 18mm and 24mm for splits and shot those in the F/16/18 range if I am remembering correctly. 

Regarding zooms of most any focal length they tend to be a little soft in the corners of both extreme ends of the lens. So you may improve at 15 rather than 14. I shoot the Sony FE 12-24 and often come off the 12 end a bit and the 24mm end. This is why primes are still popular for some. The new mirrorless zooms are far better than older DSLR film lenses but they still in many cases can't beat a prime of the same AOV. 

If you could post some RAWs at 14mm would be just GREAT!

On 4/26/2022 at 3:11 AM, ColdDarkDiver said:

Thanks for the info Phil.  I think the Rf 16 will be a small aperature specialist or have to be run in 1.5 crop mode with the 180mm. Nothing like actually trying it in the water though and I will let everyone know how it works. I worry that it is so short that it won't be able to be positioned well in the port for optimum corner sharpness. In any case, I like having a backup lens that may not be as great as the main lens (14-35)  but still will work if in the middle of the ocean if my main lens decides it wants to fail (or falls in the ocean or many of the other fates of gear on a boat). 

I think zooming just a wee bit in on the 14-35 will produce the best images. For top side shooting,  I have a 100-400 L (gen 1) and that lens always got meh reviews, but it was excellent at 390 just not great at 400.  Sometimes that slight zoom shift can make all the difference.

I have been interested in the S&S corrective lens and that may be a way to go.  For the 16mm it seems like the chances of it working are slight.  The front element on the 16mm is soooo small that I can't imagine that it would play well with a ~diopter that is designed to correct a 77 or 82 mm front element.

In any case, thanks for the insight (and all the insight you provide in your magazine - I read it all the time).  

And Still Viking, thanks for the kind words!  Any particular ones you want at full resolution?  Here is the 14mm (showing the lenses worst) but I can also try and link the raw file if you are interested (FYI it is 25 mb).

Any new reviews in real world condition?

Also curious if anyone has shot the RF 15-35? Similar performance behind a dome?

Just adding more experience in the real world.  Overall, the lens is easy to use and gets very nice images. I finally got it in the water with some sort of visibility.    I haven't been shooting for corner sharpness (i.e. not as stopped down as I would normally do if I was shooting scenery) since  I really got this lens for shooting video on the R5 and for that it does great (although I still stink at color grading... ohh so much more to learn).  The following was shot wide open at F4 at 14mm in a 180mm dome.  So sort of a worst condition scenario.

Here is a shot at 14mm at F6.3 - not to show corner sharpness but more real world usability:

I still need to dedicate a dive to real landscape imagery and will get to that in the coming weeks and can post some more at that time.

Canon today has also announced new RF 24mm F/1.8 IS STM macro (1:2) at 14cm (5.5 inches) with 52mm filter thread. This lens should be compatible with Nauticam WWL-C on full frame 130 degrees with proper port. WWL-C works with Sony 24mm F/2.8 with 49mm thread size and Sigma 24mm F/3.5 with 55mm thread size. Each works with a different port size. 

Also a $549.00 US 15-30mm F/4.5-6.3 IS STM lens that will focus to 1:2 at the 16mm end at 13cm (5.1 inches). This lens has a 67mm filter thread size. 

Both of these lenses should work well for video and stills and yes I realize that until they are tested they may not work behind a dome port for those who see the glass half empty.  The half empty consideration regarding new Sony FE PZ 16-35mm F/4 lens, a lovely U/W range has been debunked. It works behind 180 and 230mm ports, it works very well with the S&S 77mm correction lens with a step-up (72 to 77mm) ring with 230mm port and the power zoom can be set to control buttons (OK and down arrow on mine) on the Sony A1 and A7 IV cameras. I was not able to set the zoom on Sony A7c or A7R IV, I am not sure if this can be changed with a future firmware update but at this time a zoom gear will be required.  

I have the RF 14-35.

This is a photo shot at f8 in a 230mm dome.  ISO 160.  SS=1/160.  Depth=90'

13 hours ago, JayceeB said:

This is a photo shot at f8 in a 230mm dome.  ISO 160.  SS=1/160.  Depth=90'

Thank you for sharing this!

Is it at 14mm? Which camera?

In general, I would expect soft corners with a rectilinear lens at f/8, even with a big dome. I know it is a big ask, but do you have any shots with it at f/11 or smaller?

Thank you again.

17 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

The half empty consideration regarding new Sony FE PZ 16-35mm F/4 lens, a lovely U/W range has been debunked. It works behind 180 and 230mm ports, it works very well with the S&S 77mm correction lens with a step-up (72 to 77mm) ring with 230mm port

Can you share any pictures @Phil Rudin?

6 hours ago, adamhanlon said:

Thank you for sharing this!

Is it at 14mm? Which camera?

In general, I would expect soft corners with a rectilinear lens at f/8, even with a big dome. I know it is a big ask, but do you have any shots with it at f/11 or smaller?

Thank you again.

 

Shot at 14mm with the R5.

I don't currently have any f11 (or smaller) photos, but will try to get some at smaller apertures over the next few days.