180mm vs 230mm dome port with 16-35 f4 lens on FF Camera

2 hours ago, JayceeB said:

Thanks for your response, Phil.

I did see the new 16-35 Sony lens announcement, and it’s great news to hear you mention it will be a good one.

So far I have not taken split shots, but that might be something I experiment with later on.

The A7C I have been shooting for the past year is serving me well so far, but I know one day an upgrade will occur and that will surely be higher resolution.

The lens has only just been announced as has been pointed out on other posts the real test as to whether it is a good solution will be when someone puts it in a housing and tests it.  Many lenses that perform very well on land also work well underwater in a dome but a few don't.

13 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

Last the new Sony FE PZ 16-35mm F/4 coming at the end of June in the US is going to be a much better lens than the over six year old Zeiss branded lens.

What are you basing this on @Phil Rudin?

Have you had a chance to use the lens behind a dome port? 

Hi Adam. I have not used the lens and unlikely that I will before the lens is released here in late June. 

I don't think it is much of a stretch based on a number of reviews from respected reviewers using  pre production lens that a smaller, faster, internal focus, power zoom lens, with what so far have been widely described as excellent image quality should surpass the older Zeiss version.

I would be happy to hear your view and others if you think the lens won't surpass the Zeiss version.  

Until the Sony FE PZ 16-35mm F/4 is further reviewed and tested in a dome port my choice in this range remains the Tamron 17-28 F/2.8 an under $900.00 US lens that works well with the 230mm dome and with the S&S correction lens.

Just to point out that there is a thread about the new 16-35mm G going on here too:

View archived post

10 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

I don't think it is much of a stretch based on a number of reviews from respected reviewers using  pre production lens that a smaller, faster, internal focus, power zoom lens, with what so far have been widely described as excellent image quality should surpass the older Zeiss version.

Well I guess here is where we differ! I don't want to detract from any reviewer's prowess, but until I have seen the results of it at f11 (and ideally f/8)  behind a dome port at full resolution, I would be unwilling to recommend that people buy this lens for underwater use. It is wrong to suggest that a lens that performs well at the surface will, by definition, perform well underwater. Happy to modify this advice once the results are in....

What I have said for the original poster who ask about the 16-35 F/4 in a 180 port v. 230mm port is that 230 will work better with a lens this wide. 

Second that the new Sony PZ 16-35mm F/4 should surpass the quality of the older Zeiss branded Sony 16-35 F/4 and that until it is tested underwater that my choice in this focal range is still the less expensive Tamron 17-28mm F/2.8.

Canon, Nikon, Sony and others all have lenses in this zoom range both F/4 and F/2.8 none of which were designed for U/W and many are supported by Nauticam and others using a 230mm dome port for best results. I totally agree that some of these lenses will have better corners than others but they all still work in the port. 

In the thread  16-35 new lens I said,

To summarize, this is what I'm picking up from this discussion:

• Full frame cameras are more susceptible to soft corners with rectilinear wide angle lenses than crop sensor cameras.
• In general, the larger the dome, the sharper the corners for full frame.
• Higher f stops sharpen corners, with the tradeoff of having to use higher ISOs.
• Corner sharpness is not an important factor when shooting big animals offshore, because softness in blue water corners is not noticeable.
• Corner sharpness in CFWA with reef backgrounds is noticeable.
• Larger domes are better for splits.
• Zooming in improves corner sharpness.  A 16-35 at 35mm will have sharper corners than at 16mm.
• Not all wide angle lenses perform well underwater in dome ports.

I would also suggest that if you plan to add a 8-15mm fisheye zoom to your system at some point that you will need a port that allows you to remove the dome shade when using the 8mm end of the lens. Some ports don't allow this at all and some make this task more difficult than others. 

Good call.  Thanks, Phil.  Is it fair to say then that the same large dome for 16-35 rectilinear can also be used for a fisheye zoom?  I know if you were going to be strictly using the fisheye zoom, you could go with a smaller dome, just wondering if the larger domes also support fisheye.

 I can’t speak for all fisheye lenses in 230 mm ports but I use the canon 8 to 15 mm fisheye in my 230 Zen port more often than in my 140mn port. For the same reasons as a rectilinear W/A, better splits and corners. 

I'll throw in my 2 cents worth.   I shoot a Nikon 16-35F4 lens behind a 230mm dome port on a 90mm extension.   It was sold to me with a +2 diopter that was supposed to make things sharper.  (Perhaps it did with 70mm extensions previously recommended.)

When I first shot the big dome in 2015 on a Nikon D810, I was totally disappointed.  A 230mm dome is a royal pain to travel with and pack, not to mention expensive.  All that and my corners were still soft, at any aperture I really cared to use.  (F8!)

I shot that way for 4 years, cropping pretty much every shot to get rid of the poor corners and edges.

Then I got the Sea & Sea Internal Correction Lens, which was specifically designed for my lens and dome (and similar lenses).   It made a HUGE difference.  I'm ok with shooting at F5.6 now in many cases, and F8 is fine (for me).   Certainly a huge improvement over what I had previously.  Now I won't shoot the 16-35 without it.

I don't have good back-to-back comparisons, but all my Roatan shots since 2019 with the 16-35 used the lens, and none before them.  You can look here if you like:  www.cjcphoto.net.

1 hour ago, phxazcraig said:

I'll throw in my 2 cents worth.   I shoot a Nikon 16-35F4 lens behind a 230mm dome port on a 90mm extension.   It was sold to me with a +2 diopter that was supposed to make things sharper.  (Perhaps it did with 70mm extensions previously recommended.)

When I first shot the big dome in 2015 on a Nikon D810, I was totally disappointed.  A 230mm dome is a royal pain to travel with and pack, not to mention expensive.  All that and my corners were still soft, at any aperture I really cared to use.  (F8!)

I shot that way for 4 years, cropping pretty much every shot to get rid of the poor corners and edges.

Then I got the Sea & Sea Internal Correction Lens, which was specifically designed for my lens and dome (and similar lenses).   It made a HUGE difference.  I'm ok with shooting at F5.6 now in many cases, and F8 is fine (for me).   Certainly a huge improvement over what I had previously.  Now I won't shoot the 16-35 without it.

I don't have good back-to-back comparisons, but all my Roatan shots since 2019 with the 16-35 used the lens, and none before them.  You can look here if you like:  www.cjcphoto.net.

Thanks, @phxazcraig.  I do see a big difference before and after.  PS> enjoyed browsing your photos!