Wet Optics (like WWL-1, WACP-1/2) quality at tight fields of view

With certain longer lenses  such as the Panasonic 14-42 or the Canon 28-80 behind Nauticam's WWL and WACP adaptors, it's possible to achieve diagonal fields of view in the 80-50 degree range. This roughly corresponds to 26-46MM rectilinear lenses on full frame cameras.

Have you found  the 80-50 degree range useful and high quality when using longer lenses with the WACP-1/2 or WWL? Or do you get better results shooting with a wide angle or normal zoom behind a dome port in this range?

With the recommended Sony FE 28-60mm and FE 28-70mm on full frame you get to 59 and 69 degrees on the long end of these lenses using WACP-1. I have used the FE 28-60mm at the long end with the recommended 180mm dome port which is not apples to apples because the AOV runs from 75 to 40 degrees. In any case the image quality on both ends is better with the WACP-1, same same using WWL-1. Most lenses with the 50-80 degree range would be used behind a flat port so again not a very useful comparison. 

WWL-1 on 14-42 mm Panasonic is muddy at 42mm.

Pana 12-35 mm behind 6" dome was far better. Razor sharp

40 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

WWL-1 on 14-42 mm Panasonic is muddy at 42mm.

Pana 12-35 mm behind 6" dome was far better. Razor sharp

This has indeed been my experience as well with the WWL-1 and various 14-42mm Panasonic and Olympus lenses at the long end. Not great quality, which is why I rarely shoot past about 25mm or so using the WWL-1.

I

1 hour ago, Phil Rudin said:

With the recommended Sony FE 28-60mm and FE 28-70mm on full frame you get to 59 and 69 degrees on the long end of these lenses using WACP-1. I have used the FE 28-60mm at the long end with the recommended 180mm dome port which is not apples to apples because the AOV runs from 75 to 40 degrees. In any case the image quality on both ends is better with the WACP-1, same same using WWL-1. 

 

Interesting counterpoint, Phil. Makes me wonder if this comes down to the WACP-1 being better when zooming through (perhaps because it's a dry-mounted optic?) or whether it comes down to the FE 28-60 just being a better lens overall than the m4/3 options used with the WWL-1. Curious..

Behind the WACP-1, the 28-60mm should have a field of view range of 130 degrees to 69 degrees, or roughly 10mm-31mm in full frame rectilinear lens equivalent. Are you saying that the FE 28-60 + WACP-1 offers the best possible image quality, with standard zoom lenses behind a 180mm dome (or even a 230mm dome?) not coming close, even between 24-31mm?

I guess the difference with the m4/3 14-42 mm lenses is that they offer the equivalent of 10mm-45mm. Perhaps rectilinear lenses behind a dome start to come into their own in the 35-45mm focal length range. 

There may be  a number of reasons why the long end doesn't work as well behind the WWL - the base lens quality may go off at the long end or even something as simple as the entrance pupil moving as you zoom.  In the case of the WACP the 28-60 may work well because it's a better lens or the lens' characteristics might match better with the design of the WACP.   

Davide's experience with the 14-42 vs the 12-35 suggests some lenses work better at the long end and I would not be surprised to see the quality at the long end vary from lens to lens.  I would think that the lenses are mainly tested at the widest setting to check suitability for use behind these wet optics, I have read that zoom lenses are only checked for correct extension at the wide end when developing port charts.

The 12-35 extends a lot when it is at 35 mm. This I think is the main reason why it cannot be used behind the flat port and therefore with a wet lens. The 12mm also perhaps posed a few more problems.

The 14-42 mm has minimal excursion at both ends, but still at 42 mm the front lens has a different position than the 14 mm. Could this be the reason for the poorer quality?
I have seen land tests on the 14-42mm and there is no such pronounced drop in quality at 42mm.

It would be interesting to know if the same happens with the 14-42 mm PZ aka pancake. 

6 hours ago, Davide DB said:

 

It would be interesting to know if the same happens with the 14-42 mm PZ aka pancake. 

It does, Davide. I've tried pretty much every m4/3 14-42 kit lens out there, including the Olympus 14-42 EZ and Panasonic power zoom options. Don't recall much image quality difference between them.

Perhaps this example helps. It's shot with a WWL-1 and an Olympus 14-42 EZ lens set at 42mm (f/3.5-5.6; 1/80).  It can be beaten but I think that the sharpness at focus distance (left side of the jelly) is not that bad.