Confused about Nauticam port charts for z-mount

I've been looking hard at wide-angle alternatives to my 230mm dome port, to be used with a Z9 and Nauticam housing.    I've almost given up on the idea of the WACP-1, especially once it dawned on me that this was a 0.36x optic, so oriented very much toward the wide in wide angle.   I'm more interested in putting the 'small' back into wide angle, mostly when traveling.   What I have now is just wider than I'd like.  I'm shooting the 14-30, previously a 16-35.    16mm was wide enough, but 35 wasn't long enough.   Going to the 14-30 just makes things worse.   What I'd like is a 16-50 range underwater.

So I started looking at Nauticam port charts just to see which z-mount lenses are supported, with which ports and extensions.   I started wondering specifically about the 14-70 (either version - I have the F2.8 version) behind the 230 dome port.   Might not get me a smaller port, but it would at least address a focal range desire.  Until I looked at the Nauticam chart.

Specifically for the 24-70 F4 and the 24-70 F2.8, the chart gives a black asterisk for the second best port combo, with the WACP-1 or WACP-2 generally being the best option.

To my surprise, the second best option specifically for the 24-70 F4 and the 24-70 F2 is a 180mm dome port, not the 230mm dome port.  

Does this seem correct to you?  Here is the chart: https://www.nauticam.com/pages/n120-nikon-z-mount-port-chart

I don’t know the specifics of the port query.

But I would question the logic of buying a top line camera, like the Z9, that is also large. And then trying to make that a small, travel friendly system. A smaller sensor format camera would do that much better. And it also doesn’t make sense to have a top line camera, and then limits its quality with lenses with a focal range that is not well suited to typical travel underwater photography. I just mention this as food for thought before you end too much on additional lenses that you end up frustrated with. 

I feel lens frustration on almost every dive, no matter which of the two lenses I choose.   My 105 macro is a wonderful lens - for a D500.   For FX I would much rather have a 150mm macro.

When shooting wide, either 16-35 or 14-30, it's the long end I'm constantly frustrated with.   I very often find subjects more suited to a macro lens, but I've just got to stick the 230mm glass right on the subject and zoom in all the way, then crop like crazy.  I would love love love to have a 16-50 instead of a 16-35 or 14-30.   Same for medium size subjects, or subjects I can't quite approach.

I'm well aware of the tradeoffs.  I traded the flexibility and size of my RX100 rig for a D810 rig and haven't looked back.  Except to be frustrated at the focal lengths unavailable to me.  But beyond the pain of limited focal lengths, and underwater drag, it's the transportation via carryon that simply has to change for me.    I'm thinking "get a Pelican suitcase and fill it with the camera gear and be done with it".   If I'm not dragging it on a plane, then I don't much care whether I'm shooting through a 230mm dome or a WACP-1, as long as I'm getting the focal range I want.

Cool. Just checking you had thought it all through before spending money.

If it is not already, I am sure the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro will be Z-ified soon, if it hasn’t been already. Sigma et al. won’t survive without making lenses for the latest systems.

47 minutes ago, Alex_Mustard said:

Cool. Just checking you had thought it all through before spending money.

If it is not already, I am sure the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro will be Z-ified soon, if it hasn’t been already. Sigma et al. won’t survive without making lenses for the latest systems.

The Sigma 150 should work on a Z9 if it is not screw drive. There are two different models, both are Apos, one has image stabilization (the newer one).

@Craig: The first law of underwater photography is that one will have the wrong lens on the camera on a given dive at some point. One has to decide on whether one wants to shoot macro or wide angle. There are some "intermediate" or partial solutions such as using a fisheye lens with a tiny dome but that will work well only for certain subjects. The EMWL is another...  Another solution is to dive with two cameras....

1 hour ago, Tom_Kline said:

@Craig: The first law of underwater photography is that one will have the wrong lens on the camera on a given dive at some point. One has to decide on whether one wants to shoot macro or wide angle.

Off subject: but totally agree with Tom. Plan to shoot one or the other based on the subjects you know should be around the dive site and the likely visibility.

On 10/6/2022 at 12:29 PM, Tom_Kline said:

The Sigma 150 should work on a Z9 if it is not screw drive. There are two different models, both are Apos, one has image stabilization (the newer one).

I'll be looking for it - but it has to come close to the performance of the Nikon 105s.

This adapter here allows the use of Canon EF lenses on Nikon Z-mount cameras and may be of interest in the context of the tread: https://www.dpreview.com/news/4171402512/meike-releases-canon-ef-to-nikon-z-adapter-for-the-truly-brand-agnostic-among-us

=> This adapter may be useful for using third party lenses, that are incompatible with the new Z-mount, because of the screwdriver focus (as far as I know all third party lenses with old Nikon mount are also available in Canon EF mount (that never had screwdriver focus and hence should work)...

Adapted long focal length macro lenses may, however, be problematic with AF...

Wolfgang

15 hours ago, phxazcraig said:

I'll be looking for it - but it has to come close to the performance of the Nikon 105s.

 

I suspect the Z 105 will outperform either model but the 150s may outperform the F 105 in terms of chromatic aberration. Option B is to switch your Z9 to DX mode or crop in post - you will end up with a respectable rez (better than my main Nikon FF for UWP which is a D4S!).

4 hours ago, Tom_Kline said:

I suspect the Z 105 will outperform either model but the 150s may outperform the F 105 in terms of chromatic aberration. Option B is to switch your Z9 to DX mode or crop in post - you will end up with a respectable rez (better than my main Nikon FF for UWP which is a D4S!).

The only reason I want a 150mm lens is so I don't have to crop in post...

14 hours ago, phxazcraig said:

The only reason I want a 150mm lens is so I don't have to crop in post...

If you're shooting a Z9 though, Craig, you have tons of pixels. Cropping from that isn't that big a deal? Unless you want huge prints maybe.

4 hours ago, TimG said:

If you're shooting a Z9 though, Craig, you have tons of pixels. Cropping from that isn't that big a deal? Unless you want huge prints maybe.

I'm already shooting 45mp.  Z9 gives me nothing new there.   I routinely crop near DX, at DX and past DX levels.  I crop to a composition because I generally cannot achieve the correct distance to frame the shot edge-to-edge.    And when you're talking Wire Shrimp, I'm cropping to 1:1, but of course only for the web.

I might add though that I received a new Canon Pro-1000 printer on Sunday, and I've been printing up a storm, mostly 8.5x11 inches because I have so much old Epson, Red River and Ilford stock.   I also ordered two sets of 17x25 paper, but I've not printed quite that big yet.

So far, I've printed two 13x19's.   Working up to 17x25.