Nauticam WACP-C

I have a small question regarding Z-lens on the WACP-C

As the Nikon Z  28-75 f2.8 are able to be used WACP-1 but it doesnt show up on the WACP-C port charts

Will this be updated or is the Nikon Z  28-75 f2.8 unusable for the WACP-C

 Thank you

The issue is the size of the lens. The Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 for Sony also works with WACP-1 but not with WACP-C. The bigger issue is that neither of these lenses does a full zoom through. They got from Z-130 to 83 degrees T-130 to 90 degrees. The lens stops extending fully by hitting the rear of the WACP-1.

Your best lens choice for Nikon Z is still Sony FE 28-70 with Tecart Pro AF adapter for WACP-1 which gives a full zoom through of 130 to 59 degrees.

With the WACP-C the same Sony FE 28-70mm with the Megadap ETZ 21 Sony to Z adapter gives the same full 130 to 59 degree zoom through. This adapter is a new recommendation which should work with both WACP choices. 

The Z 24-70 F/4 also works at 28-32mm giving a 130 -121 zoom range perhaps the least expectable choice. The Sony lens is still the best choice and can be found widely in the used market. 

Hey Phil, do you actually know that the 28-75 doesn’t work with the WACP-C or is that an assumption made from the current port charts? Haven’t tested the new megadap adapter (reviews look promising) but I would rather sacrifice some zoom through and use a native lens.

I feel tempted to get one of these WACP-C optics, but seem to recall a discussion here or perhaps on Wetpixel Live where Alex Mustard said he was not that impressed with the original WACP design (now embodied in the "c" version), and that led to the WACP-1.  A brief search for that was unsuccessful, and I may be remembering the comment incorrectly, but will continue searching for it.  maybe someone has a link handy.

I am sure the "C" performance is less impressive than the other models, but have no idea by how much, and I would be using it on a crop sensor. 

What seems to limit what lenses can be used appears to be the diameter of the lens front element. Using the filter thread sizes in the case of WWL-1/1B it appears that a filter size of around 52/55mm is the limit. WACP-1 gets you to around 67mm. WACP-2 gets you to medium format lenses with 86m filters.

This would leave the WACP-C I would think somewhere between the 40.5mm Sony FE 28-60mm but perhaps less than the 67mm used with the Nikon Z 28-75 and Tamron 28-75mm. This is an educated guess not etched in stone. 

32 minutes ago, Draq said:

I feel tempted to get one of these WACP-C optics, but seem to recall a discussion here or perhaps on Wetpixel Live where Alex Mustard said he was not that impressed with the original WACP design (now embodied in the "c" version), and that led to the WACP-1.  A brief search for that was unsuccessful, and I may be remembering the comment incorrectly, but will continue searching for it.  maybe someone has a link handy.

I am sure the "C" performance is less impressive than the other models, but have no idea by how much, and I would be using it on a crop sensor. 

To save time you can look at the post above by Alex, it seems clear that he expects the WACP-C will "out preform" WWL-1 and "be not quite as good as WACP-1" I think that this seems logical given the price point of each lens. 

On 8/14/2022 at 11:30 PM, Architeuthis said:

Thank you Phil, I corrected the mistake...

Wolfgang

 

P.S.: I do not have personal experience with WWL-1, but on several occasions I read that UW-photographers use an O-ring (even sold by a company) to prevent train out of water from the port/WWL-1 interface, in order to be able to make split shots. Seems to work, althgough probably not a very versatile solution...

I use the WWL-C on a Nikon Z50 with 16-50 kit lens. I experimented with a 2.5 x 58 O-ring to retain the water between the flat port and the WWL-C to see if it was useful for over/under pictures. I couldn't get acceptable results with this.

Optically the WWL-C seems fine to me, weighs only a kg and is less than $1000. For most people who travel I think this is an option worth considering. My Sigma 8-16 behind a dome has a wider view and does over/under shots well.

I'll check with Nauticam to see if we can get some clarity. The reason I wanted to check is that the 24-70 F4 is listed and this is a slightly bulkier lens (72mm filter thread). Im hoping it has just not been added yet as it hasn't been tested. I definitely like the idea of having a lighter cheaper version that sits between WWL and WACP-1.

The lens itself seems to be interesting. But I hope there are more lens options in the future. For Sony are only the "kit" lenses possible, I would like to see other compact zooms like the Sigma 28-70. Don't know if this Nauticam design is even capable to use quality zooms.

1 hour ago, JYk said:

The lens itself seems to be interesting. But I hope there are more lens options in the future. For Sony are only the "kit" lenses possible, I would like to see other compact zooms like the Sigma 28-70. Don't know if this Nauticam design is even capable to use quality zooms.

 @JYk - I own the WACP 1 and shoot it with the very old Nikon 28-70mm (f/3.5-4.5). The WACP 1 makes this lens shine... it's (fairly) quick and tack sharp (easily better than any dome port lens combination for my D850). My guess is that the same will be true for the kit lenses on a modern Sony body.

The port/lens combo makes all the difference.

My daughter shoots with a FF Sony - looking forward to trying this out next spring...

1 hour ago, JYk said:

The lens itself seems to be interesting. But I hope there are more lens options in the future. For Sony are only the "kit" lenses possible, I would like to see other compact zooms like the Sigma 28-70. Don't know if this Nauticam design is even capable to use quality zooms.

Quality zooms don't seem to be necessary.  Old kit zooms like the Canon 28-70 out perform modern lenses like the latest 16-35 wide angle optics in a dome port. 

My understanding is that the WACP design has restrictions on entrance pupil size and position and it further ideally needs a lens that doesn't extend too much when zooming as it hits the inside of the WACP.  This rules out many modern zoom lenses.

there is already a design that allows use of modern wide angle zooms and that is the WACP-2 and a consequence of being able to use these modern lenses is the additional size and expense of the WACP-2 . 

I feel tempted to get one of these WACP-C optics, but seem to recall a discussion here or perhaps on Wetpixel Live where Alex Mustard said he was not that impressed with the original WACP design (now embodied in the "c" version), and that led to the WACP-1.  A brief search for that was unsuccessful, and I may be remembering the comment incorrectly, but will continue searching for it.  maybe someone has a link handy.
I am sure the "C" performance is less impressive than the other models, but have no idea by how much, and I would be using it on a crop sensor. 

59 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

Why would you not use a Tokina or an 8-15mm fisheye instead on crop sensor?
It will contain the 130 degree field of view maybe not the narrow end if a wacp-2
After all those lenses are not rectilinear anyway


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do use those.  The 8-15 is my most-often-used underwater lens.  There are times when I would like the ability to "zoom in" more than those provide or I want less fisheye distortion.  I do not know about the WACP-C, but in general, the other WACP optics give less of a fisheye effect, although perhaps not truly rectilinear.  The qualities of the WACP-2 are immaterial to me other than academic interest.  The likelihood of owning one of those is not much greater than the likelihood of owning the Hubble Space telescope.

The WACP would not replace a fisheye, it potentially replaces something like a 10-24, 16-35 or 17-70 (in Nikon terms) in a dome.  It is also not just about angle of view.  If it provides good results at a more open aperture, it may allow opportunities for faster shutter speeds, more control over depth of field, potentially faster flash recycling, possibly more flexibility for ambient light shots in shallower waters, etc.

Besides, it would be a new toy.  I like toys.

12 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

To save time you can look at the post above by Alex, it seems clear that he expects the WACP-C will "out preform" WWL-1 and "be not quite as good as WACP-1" I think that this seems logical given the price point of each lens. 

Thanks Phil.  I saw that comment from Alex, but my curiosity forces me to want to find his earlier comments anyway. 

OK, I found it, so my OCD crisis is resolved.  FWIW, Alex described the lens now known as WACP-C as giving a 1-stop benefit over a dome port and the WACP-1 as producing a 2-stop advantage.  Nauticam is claiming much greater benefit.  So I guess the question, really is whether something like the WACP-C cost-benefit ratio makes sense, and to assess that, one probably needs to factor in the flexibility of the very wide zoom range, which is not useful in many situations but very useful in others.

I do use those.  The 8-15 is my most-often-used underwater lens.  There are times when I would like the ability to "zoom in" more than those provide or I want less fisheye distortion.  I do not know about the WACP-C, but in general, the other WACP optics give less of a fisheye effect, although perhaps not truly rectilinear.  The qualities of the WACP-2 are immaterial to me other than academic interest.  The likelihood of owning one of those is not much greater than the likelihood of owning the Hubble Space telescope.
The WACP would not replace a fisheye, it potentially replaces something like a 10-24, 16-35 or 17-70 (in Nikon terms) in a dome.  It is also not just about angle of view.  If it provides good results at a more open aperture, it may allow opportunities for faster shutter speeds, more control over depth of field, potentially faster flash recycling, possibly more flexibility for ambient light shots in shallower waters, etc.
Besides, it would be a new toy.  I like toys.
 

54 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

Besides, it would be a new toy.  I like toys.

Finally, the true emerges.... 

(Count me in too)

14 hours ago, Draq said:

I feel tempted to get one of these WACP-C optics, but seem to recall a discussion here or perhaps on Wetpixel Live where Alex Mustard said he was not that impressed with the original WACP design (now embodied in the "c" version), and that led to the WACP-1.  A brief search for that was unsuccessful, and I may be remembering the comment incorrectly, but will continue searching for it.  maybe someone has a link handy.

I am sure the "C" performance is less impressive than the other models, but have no idea by how much, and I would be using it on a crop sensor. 

Wetpixel Live is always recorded in a single take so it is possible that I might not have expressed myself as intended! 

My feeling was/is the first WACP prototype (that is now the basis for the WACP-C) was clearly better than a dome - but with Nauticam we did not feel it was better by enough to persuade a community that was, at the time, not used  to UW corrected optics that they offered a big enough advantage to convince people to buy into the idea (aware that our market at the time all had domes).

So it was decided to throw more glass and money at the problem (and Edward’s expertise) and create an optic that was a bigger step over a dome setup. The result was the WACP-1. More glass and more money will always give more performance. And the WACP-1 sold way, way better than Nauticam ever imagined. Its success also made it possible to make the bigger, more expensive WACP-2.

But (even when asked) I didn’t return the WACP prototype to Nauticam because I knew it was better than a dome and therefore super-useful for me. I tested the WACP-1 pre-production and wrote the big front page article on Wetpixel about it, but actually continued using the WACP-C type lens myself, as I was not first on the list for WACP-1s! 

I have continued to use the prototype (WACP-C) alongside the WACP-1 and have taken it on trips in preference to the WACP-1 sometimes (when weight was an issue and I was not expecting to use the lens that much). However, the more I got used the quality of the WACP-1, the less I have been using the prototype as I do notice the difference in quality - something that happens whenever we upgrade lenses - you know the feeling - we used to be happy with the old lens, then we buy the new one and suddenly, the old one that used to be great, no longer looks so great. 

As I have said before I think that the lenses fall into 4 pretty clear categories, with clear correlations and inverse correlations in performance, price, size and weight.

I have shot all 4. I returned my WWL to Nauticam as I just felt it would be gathering dust. Mainly use the WACP-1, sometimes the WACP-C (as a prototype) and have borrowed the WACP-2, but have no desire to own one. But I am really pleased that underwater photographers have such a choice and different folks will find their sweet spot at different points in the range.

Alex

16 minutes ago, Alex_Mustard said:

Wetpixel Live is always recorded in a single take so it is possible that I might not have expressed myself as intended! 

My feeling was/is the first WACP prototype (that is now the basis for the WACP-C) was clearly better than a dome - but with Nauticam we did not feel it was better by enough to persuade a community that was, at the time, not used  to UW corrected optics that they offered a big enough advantage to convince people to buy into the idea (aware that our market at the time all had domes).

So it was decided to throw more glass and money at the problem (and Edward’s expertise) and create an optic that was a bigger step over a dome setup. The result was the WACP-1. More glass and more money will always give more performance. And the WACP-1 sold way, way better than Nauticam ever imagined. Its success also made it possible to make the bigger, more expensive WACP-2.

But (even when asked) I didn’t return the WACP prototype to Nauticam because I knew it was better than a dome and therefore super-useful for me. I tested the WACP-1 pre-production and wrote the big front page article on Wetpixel about it, but actually continued using the WACP-C type lens myself, as I was not first on the list for WACP-1s! 

I have continued to use the prototype (WACP-C) alongside the WACP-1 and have taken it on trips in preference to the WACP-1 sometimes (when weight was an issue and I was not expecting to use the lens that much). However, the more I got used the quality of the WACP-1, the less I have been using the prototype as I do notice the difference in quality - something that happens whenever we upgrade lenses - you know the feeling - we used to be happy with the old lens, then we buy the new one and suddenly, the old one that used to be great, no longer looks so great. 

As I have said before I think that the lenses fall into 4 pretty clear categories, with clear correlations and inverse correlations in performance, price, size and weight.

I have shot all 4. I returned my WWL to Nauticam as I just felt it would be gathering dust. Mainly use the WACP-1, sometimes the WACP-C (as a prototype) and have borrowed the WACP-2, but have no desire to own one. But I am really pleased that underwater photographers have such a choice and different folks will find their sweet spot at different points in the range.

Alex

 

Thanks for the clarification Alex.  Hope it did not seem I was misrepresenting your prior comments.  I am pleased to see nauticam offering the "C" option.  I seriously considered the "1" to the extent of measuring my bags and weighing gear and picking up a suitable lens when I found one at a good price, but finally concluded that for me, and the aircraft rules I have to deal with, it was too large and too heavy, so the "C" now looks tempting.

2 hours ago, Draq said:

Thanks for the clarification Alex.  Hope it did not seem I was misrepresenting your prior comments.  I am pleased to see nauticam offering the "C" option.  I seriously considered the "1" to the extent of measuring my bags and weighing gear and picking up a suitable lens when I found one at a good price, but finally concluded that for me, and the aircraft rules I have to deal with, it was too large and too heavy, so the "C" now looks tempting.

As an owner of a WACP-1, your comment on travel restrictions hits very close to home.

I usually only take the WACP-1 on liveaboards, or where I'm planning on shooting primarily w/a, and where the travel is fairly direct (2 flights or less). 

11 hours ago, Draq said:

The likelihood of owning one of those is not much greater than the likelihood of owning the Hubble Space telescope.

The hubble would be hard to travel with, and might not focus close enough.

This is a very exciting announcement!! I have contemplated the WACP-1 for a while but found it too heavy/big.

The ability for Sony's full frames to use the WWL1 "instead" (though image quality wouldn't be as good, as Alex pointed) makes me consider a move away from Nikon to Sony... Gives me confusing dreams...

So a mini-WACP-1 sounds great, except it doesn't seem suited to Nikon FX DSLRs (whereas the Canon DSLR people can use their 28-70 and enjoy the full 130-59 degrees range).  

I am hoping Nauticam might do more testing and find a Nikon FX lens that can make give access to a 130-50 degrees range at least, then this would an attractive option for my D810 

The Nikon DX 18-55mm looks to work well though, and it has VR, a great option for a Nikon DX DSLR... so perhaps my D500 would get a new toy... 

But I think I would get more bang for my bucks, image quality-wise, by using an expensive wet lens on the D810 than D500.

Anyways, great that Nauticam keeps releasing new wet lenses!