Nauticam WWL-C vs 180mm dome

For the past year I've been using my Fujifilm XT-3 in a Nauticam NA-XT3 housing, predominantly with the 15-45mm lens and WWL-C, and occasionally with a flat port used with my 80mm macro.  I've been pretty happy with my results, with the limiting factor still my skill rather than my equipment.

The 15-45/WWL-C combination works pretty well, except that there is vignetting wider than 18mm. Not too much of an issue given the usual location conditions. I have planned a trip to clearer waters later this year which should provide more opportunity for wider angle photography, so I'm considering purchasing the 180mm dome and use the 10-24mm zoom. I could also use my 18-55mm with the 180mm dome.

When I originally reached out to Nauticam for their advice, the response was that the 15-45mm would be "far sharper combination than the 18-55mm and 10-24mm behind the 180mm dome"

Any opinions?

The 15-45 at 18mm will give you the field of view of a 11.3mm rectilinear lens or about 125° diagonal field of view, so you are not missing much of the 130° max field available with the WWL-C.  The 10-24 would provide a 110° maximum field of view on the diagonal.

Looking at full frame equivalent focal lengths the WWL-c would be a 11.3-28mm equivalent lens while the 10-24mm would be a 15-36mm lens.  So would be slightly longer at the wide end but not as wide on the wide end.   If you are shooting wide angle I don't see any advantage for the 10-24mm

the 10-24 would, being 15mm full frame equivalent would be a little soft in the corners with a 180mm dome and you would need to stop down to at least f11 for good corners.

So unless you need more reach I see no benefit to the 10-24mm even before considering optical quality being less than the WWL-C.  The WWL-C can focus down to the glass so you can make up for some of the slight loss of reach compared to the long end of the 10-24 by getting a bit closer, if you are considering CFWA opportunities.

Thanks the response @chrisross - a wealth of knowledge as always!

Sounds like an expensive experiment for questionable (if any) gain.

Until now I've not really taken a close look at just how much I miss at the wide end - so I've found a few shots in my LightRoom catalog with the 15-45 at the wide end. Here are some uncropped, unedited samples. From my results, Nauticam's listed zoom range of 18-15 with the 15-45mm/WWL-C combination could probably be revised to 17-45 

Shot at 15mm. Substantial cropping required:

Shot at 16.1mm. Only a little bit of cropping needed:

Shot at 16.6mm. Very little if any cropping required - bit hard to tell with the harsh shadows, but this was the widest photo I could find that showed no vignetting.

Whether it's 17mm or 18mm it's still wider than the 15mm equivalent of the 10-24, the only way to go wider would be a fisheye lens which would require an adapted lens and you would need to work out the extension needed and potentially a zoom gear.  Metabones make an adapter but it's only been tested on the expensive Canon 8-15

I have the zoom gear for the 10-24 and the extension required - got it at the same time I bought my second hand housing.

I've chatted to someone else who shoots a Canon 8-15mm Fisheye on an XT-3 using a Fringer.  I don't need to shoot wider enough to justify another $6k+ for the lens, adapter, gears, extension and dome.

I could almost justify just the 180mm dome if it was going to add anything, but it seems not. So I'll just stick with what I have and spend the money on a diving holiday instead

Not quite the same thing, but have a look at this thread here, where @PeteAtkinson compares a WWL-C on Nikon Z 15-45mm, Sigma 8-16mm and Tokina 10-17mm:

View archived post in: Angle of view comparison: WWL-C and 16-50Z, with Sigma 8-16, Nauticam 8.5" dome.

37 minutes ago, froop said:

I have the zoom gear for the 10-24 and the extension required - got it at the same time I bought my second hand housing.

I've chatted to someone else who shoots a Canon 8-15mm Fisheye on an XT-3 using a Fringer.  I don't need to shoot wider enough to justify another $6k+ for the lens, adapter, gears, extension and dome.

I could almost justify just the 180mm dome if it was going to add anything, but it seems not. So I'll just stick with what I have and spend the money on a diving holiday instead

sounds like a better use for your $$$

I used to shoot a Sony a6400 and almost exclusively wide angle wrecks. I had two setups I used that are similar to what you are considering: 

1) Sony 10-18 with a 7" acrylic dome (I needed the 100m rating and the 180mm glass equivalent was only 60m)

2) Sony 16-50 with the WWL-C

The benefit of the 10-18 combo was primarily straighter lines. If I knew I was going to be diving a ship, I would take it every single time. I personally liked the look of the photos with this combo "better" but that is a personal choice. I also used this combo when I was taking photos to build a photogrammetry model.

If I was diving an airplane or something smaller or something unknown, I would take the WWL-C. The advantages of the WWL-C are that it is more compact and easier to travel with (you mention spending some leftover $$ on travel in your last comment) and that it is more flexible with the zoom range.

Unless you really want (or need) straighter lines for wreck photography, I'd stick with the WWL-C, especially if you are considering travel.

Regards,

- brett