Wide angle options for wreck photography with full-frame

This is a "fork" from the original topic discussed here:

View archived post in: Sony mirrorless lens recommendations for big animals / wide angle

@adamhanlon in that thread 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!"

I currently use the WWL-1B on a Sony a7r4 with the 28-60 lens. I agree with Adam that at f8 the corners are a bit soft; however, I don't know of a better solution in my particular situation and I'd be very open to other lens/dome options. Here are is the specific situation that drove my choice of the WWL-1B:

1) Pre-covid and now starting again, I travel to a lot of remote locations (Chuuk, Bikini, etc.) with a LOT of gear (rebreather, bailout regs, spares, dry suit, cave/wreck stuff, etc.) so space (and weight) is at a premium.

2) 90% of my dives are on wrecks. I know that the WWL-1B isn't exactly rectilinear but it is closer to that than a true fisheye. 

3) Related to the above, many of my photos on the outside of wrecks have blue water in at least two corners so corner sharpness isn't critical. However, plenty of pictures are inside the wrecks where sharper corners would be nice.

I might even be willing to "sacrifice" the straight lines of a rectilinear lens (or something close to that like a WWL-1B) if I could get a "compact" fisheye solution that improved corner sharpness.

I think one of the key questions here is "what is a medium sized dome" as @adamhanlon mentions in the quote above?

One last note: another benefit of the 28-60 and WWL-1B combo is that I can bring one lens and one wet-lens and get a pretty wide range of shooting options. For example, I just got back from Palau and I did some wreck, cave, and reef dives all on the same trip (this is a bit unusual for me). During some dives, I would remove the WWL-1B wet-lens and just use the 28-60 behind the flat port. 

I'm very open to ideas on how to get better corners, but right now in my particular situation, I don't know that one exists?

Regards,

- brett

Hi Brett,

I think the ultimate in sharpness overall is the WACP for your setup with the kit lens 28-70. I've used this with excellent results in the corners, even at wider apertures.

As for using the Canon 8-15 with an adapter, a 140mm dome would be sufficient for blue water corners at f8, with insides of wrecks with things in the corners at f11.

On 4/12/2022 at 2:33 AM, TmxDiver said:

This is a "fork" from the original topic discussed here:

@adamhanlon in that thread 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!"

 

I currently use the WWL-1B on a Sony a7r4 with the 28-60 lens. I agree with Adam that at f8 the corners are a bit soft; however, I don't know of a better solution in my particular situation and I'd be very open to other lens/dome options. Here are is the specific situation that drove my choice of the WWL-1B:

1) Pre-covid and now starting again, I travel to a lot of remote locations (Chuuk, Bikini, etc.) with a LOT of gear (rebreather, bailout regs, spares, dry suit, cave/wreck stuff, etc.) so space (and weight) is at a premium.

2) 90% of my dives are on wrecks. I know that the WWL-1B isn't exactly rectilinear but it is closer to that than a true fisheye. 

3) Related to the above, many of my photos on the outside of wrecks have blue water in at least two corners so corner sharpness isn't critical. However, plenty of pictures are inside the wrecks where sharper corners would be nice.

I might even be willing to "sacrifice" the straight lines of a rectilinear lens (or something close to that like a WWL-1B) if I could get a "compact" fisheye solution that improved corner sharpness.

I think one of the key questions here is "what is a medium sized dome" as @adamhanlon mentions in the quote above?

One last note: another benefit of the 28-60 and WWL-1B combo is that I can bring one lens and one wet-lens and get a pretty wide range of shooting options. For example, I just got back from Palau and I did some wreck, cave, and reef dives all on the same trip (this is a bit unusual for me). During some dives, I would remove the WWL-1B wet-lens and just use the 28-60 behind the flat port. 

I'm very open to ideas on how to get better corners, but right now in my particular situation, I don't know that one exists?

Regards,

- brett

 

 

 

I recall Adam mentioning a 7" dome - it's one of the Seacam domes for use with a fisheye. However I don't think you want to be using a fisheye with wrecks from your description. 

There is one solution of course being the WACP but that is a heavy and quite expensive solution.  It sounds like you don't want to look into carrying the 230mm dome you would need for a 16-35 lens and that would still be a touch soft in the corners unless you added a S&S correction lensand even then you might be shooting f11.  So it comes down to accepting the WWL corner sharpness or shelling out for a WACP based on what ports/wetoptics/lenses are currently available for full frame.

6 hours ago, JimDeck said:

Hi Brett,

I think the ultimate in sharpness overall is the WACP for your setup with the kit lens 28-70. I've used this with excellent results in the corners, even at wider apertures.

As for using the Canon 8-15 with an adapter, a 140mm dome would be sufficient for blue water corners at f8, with insides of wrecks with things in the corners at f11.

 

 

Thanks, Jim.

I agree on the WACP but, unfortunately, both the cost and the weight are pretty prohibitive IMO.

At some point, I might try the fisheye route just to have a different option when I'm not shooting almost always on wrecks.

- brett

4 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

I recall Adam mentioning a 7" dome - it's one of the Seacam domes for use with a fisheye. However I don't think you want to be using a fisheye with wrecks from your description. 

There is one solution of course being the WACP but that is a heavy and quite expensive solution.  It sounds like you don't want to look into carrying the 230mm dome you would need for a 16-35 lens and that would still be a touch soft in the corners unless you added a S&S correction lensand even then you might be shooting f11.  So it comes down to accepting the WWL corner sharpness or shelling out for a WACP based on what ports/wetoptics/lenses are currently available for full frame.

Thanks, Chris.

Yes, currently, I don't really like the fisheye look for wrecks. As mentioned in my response to Jim, I might try it in the future to have something else to work with. Especially if I start taking trips that are not wreck-specific.

I have friends who shoot the 16-35 with a large dome and I did definitely consider that but the 230mm dome seems like such a hard piece of equipment to travel with to really remote locations. I am thinking about it when diving locally. 

The big question is: would the 16-35 with and without the correction lens and a 230mm dome would be any sharper in the corners than the WWL-1B at a given aperture? 

If so, then there is a potential tradeoff and possibly a reason to go that route (even if for local dives and maybe try to find a system to take it on a trip). I'm just not sure if it is. Any thoughts or do you know if anybody has done a side-by-side test? 

Regards,

- brett

Side by side test might be difficult to find and even then it'll probably have 1000 pixel long side sample images.  This has been discussed before like here:

View archived post in: Which Nauticam 9" dome with Sony 16-35gm?

You could try messaging phxazcraig - he uses a 16-35 on a d850 with S&S correction lens- not exactly the same but should indicate what a 16-35 behind a 230mm dome is capable of.  He might be able to point you in the direction of some sample images?

Thanks, Chris. Definitely more to ponder & research.

For now, I'm pretty happy with the WWL-1B for what I use it for, but I'm always open to new ways of doing things and optimizing.

- brett

Hey Brett,

Given the options before you the best thing is probably to use the WWL-1B. I've used this lens quite a bit with various systems and use f8 for water in the corners, f11 for anything where there's stuff in the corners, and f22 for CFWA. I do not think you will see an improvement in the corners compared to a 16-35 for what you are doing.

2 hours ago, JimDeck said:

Hey Brett,

Given the options before you the best thing is probably to use the WWL-1B. I've used this lens quite a bit with various systems and use f8 for water in the corners, f11 for anything where there's stuff in the corners, and f22 for CFWA. I do not think you will see an improvement in the corners compared to a 16-35 for what you are doing.

Good info, thanks Jim.

- brett

Like Jim D I have had an opportunity to use both the WWL-1 and WACP with the Sony FE 28mm F/2, Sony FE 28-70mm and Sony FE 28-60mm. My take is the same as Jim F8 is about the limit for blue water and F11 gets you executable corners by most standards. As Jim has said above that is also my experience with a fisheye zoom like Canon and Nikon 8-15mm in a 140mm dome. 

Regarding 16-35, 14, 12-24mm all need the 230mm port and all will suffer shooting below F13. I have also used Zeiss 18mm, Tamron 17-28mm, 16-35mm and a few more with the S&S correction lens in both 180mm and 230mm ports. My take is that you should only expect to gain one stop or two at the very best with the 230mm dome port. 

21 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

Like Jim D I have had an opportunity to use both the WWL-1 and WACP with the Sony FE 28mm F/2, Sony FE 28-70mm and Sony FE 28-60mm. My take is the same as Jim F8 is about the limit for blue water and F11 gets you executable corners by most standards. As Jim has said above that is also my experience with a fisheye zoom like Canon and Nikon 8-15mm in a 140mm dome. 

Regarding 16-35, 14, 12-24mm all need the 230mm port and all will suffer shooting below F13. I have also used Zeiss 18mm, Tamron 17-28mm, 16-35mm and a few more with the S&S correction lens in both 180mm and 230mm ports. My take is that you should only expect to gain one stop or two at the very best with the 230mm dome port. 

Perfect, thanks Phil. 

It seems like, at least for my specific purpose (travel & wrecks), the WWL-1B with the 28-60 is the optimal solution. 

Regards,

- brett

I guess it depends on how critical you are and what you will do with your photos.

I shot these with my Canon 5Dmk4 and the 8-15 with a 140mm dome. F-stops were 9, 6.3, 10, 7.1 (in that order). The corners are sharp enough for me. The visibility was about 40' for the Palau Jake Plane and only about 25' for the Galapagos hammerhead, so the shots aren't great, but ok based on the conditions. I used a Tenko 1.4 TC for the Galapagos shot.

5 hours ago, JohnnyQuest said:

I guess it depends on how critical you are and what you will do with your photos.

I shot these with my Canon 5Dmk4 and the 8-15 with a 140mm dome. F-stops were 9, 6.3, 10, 7.1 (in that order). The corners are sharp enough for me. The visibility was about 40' for the Palau Jake Plane and only about 25' for the Galapagos hammerhead, so the shots aren't great, but ok based on the conditions. I used a Tenko 1.4 TC for the Galapagos shot.

 

 

I think you might see a bit sharper corners with a fisheye at a given f-stop (but not much with a 140mm dome). 

I personally don't like the fisheye effect on wrecks. I was in Palau a couple weeks ago and took a picture similar to the above with the WWL-1B which also has some barrel distortion but not as much as the fisheye. You can see the difference. It isn't the exact same picture, but pretty close.This is without any lens corrections in LR. 

To be honest, I would prefer a rectilinear even more like the 16-35 but I just don't want to travel with a 230mm dome.

Again, it is really personal preference on the fisheye with wrecks.

On 4/14/2022 at 12:53 AM, ChrisRoss said:

Side by side test might be difficult to find and even then it'll probably have 1000 pixel long side sample images.  This has been discussed before like here:

View archived post in: Which Nauticam 9" dome with Sony 16-35gm?

You could try messaging phxazcraig - he uses a 16-35 on a d850 with S&S correction lens- not exactly the same but should indicate what a 16-35 behind a 230mm dome is capable of.  He might be able to point you in the direction of some sample images?

I do indeed shoot the 16-35 and D850 with 230mm dome and S&S correction lens.  And I love that S&S.  NOTHING has made a difference in the corners like that lens.   Without it, I always ended up cropping the edges regardless of f-stop used.    With it, I feel fine with F5.6 in the corners, and I rarely crop edges due to IQ issues there.

I am using a 90mm extension with my 230mm dome port, by the way.  I know that others have used the 16-35 with a previously-recommended 70mm extension, and I think 70 may be too short.   For instance, I was told I had to use a +2 diopter to get properly focused images, but I never noticed a difference with or without it.  Which makes sense to me if 70mm was too short.

The S&S filter, which only comes in two sizes (77mm and 82mm) was (apparently) specifically designed for 16-35 lenses in 230/240mm domes.    Vary from those parameters, and expect less.   But it was by far the best $400 I spent on wide angle.

It is a little difficult for me to find good shots to demo, because I have to go back to the originals to see if I cropped.   But I found one that is uncropped and seems a decent shot to evaluate corner performance.   It was taken at F10 and 35mm.

6 hours ago, phxazcraig said:

I do indeed shoot the 16-35 and D850 with 230mm dome and S&S correction lens.  And I love that S&S.  NOTHING has made a difference in the corners like that lens.   Without it, I always ended up cropping the edges regardless of f-stop used.    With it, I feel fine with F5.6 in the corners, and I rarely crop edges due to IQ issues there.

Thanks for the detailed response. 

As you said on the other thread, traveling with a 230mm dome is problematic (especially given all the other gear I bring for deep rebreather dives in cold water). 

Do you have any thoughts on performance with a 16-35 with the S&S correction lens and a 180mm dome? I following the thread on 180mm vs 230 but I don't think that specific option has been mentioned?

I think a 180mm without the correction lens wouldn't be "good enough" but with the correction lens?

I don't really shoot over/under shots so I don't care about that.

- brett

On 4/18/2022 at 9:50 AM, phxazcraig said:

I do indeed shoot the 16-35 and D850 with 230mm dome and S&S correction lens.  And I love that S&S.  NOTHING has made a difference in the corners like that lens.   Without it, I always ended up cropping the edges regardless of f-stop used.    With it, I feel fine with F5.6 in the corners, and I rarely crop edges due to IQ issues there.

I went diving last weekend for the first time with a new wide-angle setup; Nikon Z6 II,  Nikon Z 14-30mm f/4, and a Zen 230mm dome port. I was disappointed with the corners at 14mm for all aperture settings (f/11, f/14, f/18). I looked everywhere for the S&S M82 Internal Correction Lens and discovered it has been discontinued. The only place I could find it in-stock was at Reef Photo in Fort Lauderdale, FL for $599 U.S. so I bought the last one! It will take a month or so for me to get it shipped to me (I live in Belize) and I will post some pics when I get it.

Sea & Sea has some sample images with the Nikon Z 14-30mm @ 14mm, S&S M82 Internal Correction lens, and the S&S Fisheye Dome Port 240 here and they look pretty good:

https://www.seaandsea.jp/sample/nikon14-30.html

I think the 14-30mm F/4 is a great choice for Z-cameras and will be interested to see how the lens performs with the S&S correction lens in a 230mm port. I am not seeing an upside to the much more expensive Z 14-24mm F/2.8 for U/W use.