NEW Sony 16-35 F4 PZ G Lens

@DavidLloyd Nice pictures above. Mind me asking what dome/port combination you're using with the 16-35 PZ?

@BobbyV using an 8” acrylic dome Port with a 60mm extension ring.

2 hours ago, DavidLloyd said:

@BobbyV using an 8” acrylic dome Port with a 60mm extension ring.

Thanks David! How are you finding the corner sharpness, etc? Not sure if the above images are cropped, but if not, it's looking pretty good. I've been pondering a similar setup (I already own the 16-35) or the 28-60 with the WAPC. I would appreciate the ability to do over-unders with the dome which isn't possible with WAPC 1 and C

@DavidLloyd thanks a lot! Do you have any pics that show both ends of the zoom range? Does the widest end look like fisheye? How close can you focus?

This lens has a minimum working distance of 28cm and at the same time is really small 

The combination means that it needs an extremely large radius port to work properly

Unfortunately the Nauticam 250 wide angle port has a very small angle of view of 103 degrees so there is not really anything out there that would fit this lens well

A port with 16 cm radius which is what this lens needs and you would be looking at a 40cm port a bit overwhelming

1 hour ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

@DavidLloyd thanks a lot! Do you have any pics that show both ends of the zoom range? Does the widest end look like fisheye? How close can you focus?

Three un-cropped images of Roman, the split is at 16mm shot at F/4, with sunglasses 35mm at F/11 and the vertical is 16mm at F/11. These are taken with the Sony A-1 in a Marelux housing with the recommended 50 mm's of extension and a 230mm dome port. I was also using the S&S 77mm lens with a 72 to 77mm step-up ring. You can see the S&S mounted on the PZ lens in the silver Marelux MX-A74 and with the 230mm port on the green A-1 housing.

I also used the lens with the 305mm (12 inch) Matty Smith port and I would be hard pressed to see much of a gain in IQ however it helps in other ways when shooting the splits for which it was intended. 

I own both the 16-35 PZ and the Tamron 17-28mm F/2.8 talked about in another thread by 121 for use with a 180 or 230mm port my pick would be the Tamron.

26 minutes ago, Phil Rudin said:

Three un-cropped images of Roman, the split is at 16mm shot at F/4, with sunglasses 35mm at F/11 and the vertical is 16mm at F/11. These are taken with the Sony A-1 in a Marelux housing with the recommended 50 mm's of extension and a 230mm dome port. I was also using the S&S 77mm lens with a 72 to 77mm step-up ring. You can see the S&S mounted on the PZ lens in the silver Marelux MX-A74 and with the 230mm port on the green A-1 housing.

I also used the lens with the 305mm (12 inch) Matty Smith port and I would be hard pressed to see much of a gain in IQ however it helps in other ways when shooting the splits for which it was intended. I

Thanks so much, now I think, I remember! 
 

Unfortunately I mixed inches up with cm and thought that he used a quite small dome. But now more than ever I understand the quality and usability of the 28-60 with WACP-C. 
 

I‘ll stay with my system. 

3 minutes ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

Thanks so much, now I think, I remember! 
 

Unfortunately I mixed inches up with cm and thought that he used a quite small dome. But now more than ever I understand the quality and usability of the 28-60 with WACP-C. 
 

I‘ll stay with my system. 

I agree that the 28-60 and the WACP-C are quite good despite the notion by some that because a lens marketed as a "kit" lens that it can't be good.

Just received my National Geographic and the last page inside has a shot by Cristina Mittermeir who I believe is a Sony Ambassador.

Photographed in Galapagos it says shot with a Sony A1 and 28-60mm lens and I'd bet some WACP additional lens. That combination appears to be good enough for this high standards publication!

Apologies for the quick iPhone capture of the page....

In print it looks great

12 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

I own both the 16-35 PZ and the Tamron 17-28mm F/2.8 talked about in another thread by 121 for use with a 180 or 230mm port my pick would be the Tamron.

 

A little off-topic, but did you test the Tamron with the Sea&Sea corrrection lens (230 and 180 ports)?

Thanks, Wolfgang

11 hours ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

Thanks so much, now I think, I remember! 
 

Unfortunately I mixed inches up with cm and thought that he used a quite small dome. But now more than ever I understand the quality and usability of the 28-60 with WACP-C. 
 

I‘ll stay with my system. 

I think that WACP or rectilinear WA lenses is not the same niche, but it complements each other. Both have their applications...

Wolfgang

That’s correct the important part is where the lens is wider than 74 degrees on the horizontal which is the zoom range between 28 and 40 mm
Once you are competing with 24-70mm zoom you are in dead zone as there are plenty of sharper options
In fact you may even argue that from 32mm you are getting some serious competition from rectilinear lenses
The WACP is a contender to lenses in the 12-16 range where a rectilinear lens looks generally ugly at close range even topside outside this range there is plenty of other choices


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@BobbyV corner sharpness with a lens / combo with this will always have some kind of compromise that you'll need to deal with. I always shoot with this in mind and work within the constraints of my gear if I can. @fruehaufsteher2 There is no fisheye visible at all. I've attached 2x images un-cropped. The reefscape (16mm) has the tiniest bit of softness in the very corners if you look really hard. Not enough to even be noticeable when printed. The anemone shot some would consider "soft", however if you look closely, you'll notice it's actually out of focus areas due to the focal plain and close focus of a 35mm shot. This was captured at f13, so I could have stopped down further if this was an issue, but I don't believe it is, seeing as the fish are the focus of the capture. Looking closely at the bottom right of this image, you can see that the corner of the frame with the anemone is only slightly soft.

[mention=102677]BobbyV[/mention] corner sharpness with a lens / combo with this will always have some kind of compromise that you'll need to deal with. I always shoot with this in mind and work within the constraints of my gear if I can. [mention=102017]fruehaufsteher2[/mention] There is no fisheye visible at all. I've attached 2x images un-cropped. The reefscape (16mm) has the tiniest bit of softness in the very corners if you look really hard. Not enough to even be noticeable when printed. The anemone shot some would consider "soft", however if you look closely, you'll notice it's actually out of focus areas due to the focal plain and close focus of a 35mm shot. This was captured at f13, so I could have stopped down further if this was an issue, but I don't believe it is, seeing as the fish are the focus of the capture. Looking closely at the bottom right of this image, you can see that the corner of the frame with the anemone is only slightly soft.