Read-only discussion
Hello All,
Does anybody have real underwater experience with image results from use of Nauticam WACP-C use with Canon EF 28-70 f/3.5-4.5 II and WWL-1B unsure of which lens. My proposed use is Canon R5, looking to replace Canon 7D had used Tokina 10-17, Canon 60mm macro and 100 Macro. Will continue to use 100 macro, interested in replacing 10-17 & 60mm with either WACP-C or WWL-1B. Appreciate input. Thank you.
I don't believe it's possible to use WWL-1 with full-frame Canon cameras, whether EF or RF mount - a compatible lens does not appear to exist thus far. You can use it with an R7 and its 18-45mm kit lens, but if you want full-frame, you need to look at Sony, or Nikon Z with a Sony lens. For Canon full-frame, if you want water-contact optics, WACP is the only game in town.
Thank you for this information... it is times like this I think I wish I would have decided on Sony a1 rather than R5. Is the WACP-C not an option with R5?
I'm sure a look at the wacp-c port chart will answer that question.
The WACP port chart seems a little incomplete and only offers a 15-35 APS-C lens for RF mount. However the Nauticam RF port chart states as the last item that the EF port chart applies to a mirrorless Canon camera plus EF-RF adapter combination.
So logically if the 28-70 and 28-80 lenses behave well on the EF-RF adapter you can use them with the WACP-C. By behave well I mean they autofocus properly. Optically the situation with those lenses is the same if you use the WACP with the recommended extension on an R series camera. All three 28-70/28-80 lenses use the 21325 N100-N120 adapter together with the WACP-C.
Hello All,
Does anybody have real underwater experience with image results from use of Nauticam WACP-C use with Canon EF 28-70 f/3.5-4.5 II and WWL-1B unsure of which lens. My proposed use is Canon R5, looking to replace Canon 7D had used Tokina 10-17, Canon 60mm macro and 100 Macro. Will continue to use 100 macro, interested in replacing 10-17 & 60mm with either WACP-C or WWL-1B. Appreciate input. Thank you.
41 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:
The WACP WWL-1 field of view is narrower than the Tokina 10-17mm on APSC
The closest option is Canon 8-15mm with 1.4 TC
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is a good point, the WACP/WWL is not a direct replacement for a fullframe fisheye as it doesn't have the same very wide field. The canon 8-15 and 1.4x is discussed recently in this thread:
View archived post in: Sony A1 - Canon 8-15 vs. Sony Primes for Wide Angle
On 3/17/2023 at 12:45 PM, Barmaglot said:I don't believe it's possible to use WWL-1 with full-frame Canon cameras, whether EF or RF mount - a compatible lens does not appear to exist thus far. You can use it with an R7 and its 18-45mm kit lens, but if you want full-frame, you need to look at Sony, or Nikon Z with a Sony lens. For Canon full-frame, if you want water-contact optics, WACP is the only game in town.
Upon further investigation, you are correct. WACP-1 and appears WACP-C. Seems I should maybe have invested in Sony a1 rather than Canon R5...
On 3/17/2023 at 3:04 PM, hyp said:I'm sure a look at the wacp-c port chart will answer that question.
Indeed, port chart indicates, compatible with Canon Full Frame a few lens options.
Canon EF 28-80mm 19559 21325 85205 Lens FOV 75-31o
f/3.5-5.6 V USM C2880f3.5V-Z N120 to N100 25mm Port Adaptor WACP - C Converted FOV 130-54o
Canon EF 28-70mm 19557 21325 85205 Lens FOV 72-34o
f/3.5-4.5 II C2870f3.5II-Z N120 to N100 25mm Port Adaptor WACP - C Converted FOV 130-59o
* slight vignetting when focus distance from port to subject is less than 10cm at 28mm
Canon EF 28-80mm 19558 21325 85205 Lens FOV 75-30o
f/3.5-5.6 II C2880f3.5II-Z N120 to N100 25mm Port Adaptor WACP - C
On 3/17/2023 at 5:34 PM, ChrisRoss said:The WACP port chart seems a little incomplete and only offers a 15-35 APS-C lens for RF mount. However the Nauticam RF port chart states as the last item that the EF port chart applies to a mirrorless Canon camera plus EF-RF adapter combination.
So logically if the 28-70 and 28-80 lenses behave well on the EF-RF adapter you can use them with the WACP-C. By behave well I mean they autofocus properly. Optically the situation with those lenses is the same if you use the WACP with the recommended extension on an R series camera. All three 28-70/28-80 lenses use the 21325 N100-N120 adapter together with the WACP-C.
Appreciate your help. I have a better understanding now, reviewing the chart, does not appear any indication there is compatible RF lenses... must be a sophisticated software to figure all the glass out. Wonder if an RF lens will ever be a good match with the WACP-C. Or, maybe not necessary to find additional compatible lenses for WACP-C for Canon full frame R cameras, the currently compatible could suffice. WACP's are large investments to be wedded older lenses.
Canon EF 28-80mm 19559 21325 85205 Lens FOV 75-31o
f/3.5-5.6 V USM C2880f3.5V-Z N120 to N100 25mm Port Adaptor WACP - C Converted FOV 130-54o
Canon EF 28-70mm 19557 21325 85205 Lens FOV 72-34o
f/3.5-4.5 II C2870f3.5II-Z N120 to N100 25mm Port Adaptor WACP - C Converted FOV 130-59o
* slight vignetting when focus distance from port to subject is less than 10cm at 28mm
Canon EF 28-80mm 19558 21325 85205 Lens FOV 75-30o
f/3.5-5.6 II C2880f3.5II-Z N120 to N100 25mm Port Adaptor WACP - C
It is not complicated
If you look at the WWL-1 analysis i did on the A1
https://interceptor121.com/2023/03/11/nauticam-wwl-1-on-sony-full-frame-what-to-expect/
You can see that the WWL-1 supports lenses that are physically small those fit in a flat port
Lenses that are bigger (filter size > 52mm) don’t fit a flat port and require a dry mount
Canon has not made small and slow RF lenses is focussed on premium products and those are big
Most canon and nikon compatible lenses are obsolete kit lenses of previous generation
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
7 hours ago, Muriel said:Appreciate your help. I have a better understanding now, reviewing the chart, does not appear any indication there is compatible RF lenses... must be a sophisticated software to figure all the glass out. Wonder if an RF lens will ever be a good match with the WACP-C. Or, maybe not necessary to find additional compatible lenses for WACP-C for Canon full frame R cameras, the currently compatible could suffice. WACP's are large investments to be wedded older lenses.
Canon EF 28-80mm 19559 21325 85205 Lens FOV 75-31o
f/3.5-5.6 V USM C2880f3.5V-Z N120 to N100 25mm Port Adaptor WACP - C Converted FOV 130-54o
Canon EF 28-70mm 19557 21325 85205 Lens FOV 72-34o
f/3.5-4.5 II C2870f3.5II-Z N120 to N100 25mm Port Adaptor WACP - C Converted FOV 130-59o* slight vignetting when focus distance from port to subject is less than 10cm at 28mm
Canon EF 28-80mm 19558 21325 85205 Lens FOV 75-30o
f/3.5-5.6 II C2880f3.5II-Z N120 to N100 25mm Port Adaptor WACP - C
The premise is that there is a plentiful supply of these old lenses on the second hand market and they can be picked up quite cheaply.
If your not so comfortable with that you could look at a Canon 8-15 lens with a 1.4x converter which is effectively a direct replacement for your Tokina 10-17. In full frame terms it would be 11-21mm equivalent lens but usable from 15 - 21mm. It doesn't have quite the reach of the WWL but is significantly wider
7 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:It is not complicated
If you look at the WWL-1 analysis i did on the A1
https://interceptor121.com/2023/03/11/nauticam-wwl-1-on-sony-full-frame-what-to-expect/
You can see that the WWL-1 supports lenses that are physically small those fit in a flat port
Lenses that are bigger (filter size > 52mm) don’t fit a flat port and require a dry mount
Canon has not made small and slow RF lenses is focussed on premium products and those are big
Most canon and nikon compatible lenses are obsolete kit lenses of previous generation
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fabulous information, thank you very much, my thought process is just spinning... difficult to decide without hands on, however, hands on is not part of the process in this expensive endeavor, making all the decisions more difficult. I appreciate your replies and information. I just do not yet trust WACP-C will be the real deal and the cost to the unknown is affecting the purchase decision. And WACP-1, wow to travel with that : - ( maybe the EMWL would be more of a reasonable investment. Well... none of Nauticam is a reasonable investment, however, it is what it is, expense wise. Again, thank you!
1 hour ago, Muriel said:I just do not yet trust WACP-C will be the real deal and the cost to the unknown is affecting the purchase decision.
You can see a basic comparison between WACP-1/WACP-C/WWL-1/16-35mm+dome here: https://www.facebook.com/NauticamThailand/posts/pfbid02Rx7a3XcKJzRSHnjVT9bx5G7XPVNBmVY1GpuxP24QNRqHCAAKpC6c4hbvWWYwvzn7l
As of EMWL, I don't own one, but watching people who do, it doesn't appear to be an everyday general-purpose solution - it can do shots that an everyday lens can't, but it can only do those shots.
Also depending on your setup EMWL may not work optimally. There are quite a few posts of people having backfocussing issues with it because focus breathing gets magnified by the lens.
3 hours ago, Barmaglot said:You can see a basic comparison between WACP-1/WACP-C/WWL-1/16-35mm+dome here: https://www.facebook.com/NauticamThailand/posts/pfbid02Rx7a3XcKJzRSHnjVT9bx5G7XPVNBmVY1GpuxP24QNRqHCAAKpC6c4hbvWWYwvzn7l
As of EMWL, I don't own one, but watching people who do, it doesn't appear to be an everyday general-purpose solution - it can do shots that an everyday lens can't, but it can only do those shots.
Hello, thank you for your reply. I had reviewed the link you have provided, one tiny concern is they were taken with Sony & Sony lenses, not Canon, I guess could believe similar results from Canon. Understand about the EMWL, however, at least images taken appear very good/sharp, seems better than to have something than expensive marginal is what I was thinking, maybe only brief thinking that will pass, maybe.
2 hours ago, hyp said:Also depending on your setup EMWL may not work optimally. There are quite a few posts of people having backfocussing issues with it because focus breathing gets magnified by the lens.
OK, still trying to kick all this around, I feel I am locked in to Canon as I purchase the Canon R5 a couple months ago, without realizing some of the limitations I would have with R5 & Nauticam. I suppose I could take a loss on R5 and switch to Sony a1, however, now, am running out of time previous to a trip departure. At this point I am actually considering purchase of an R7, which that thinking has it's issues also, however, would be able to use WWL-1B I think, which would provide some savings on housing and Nauticam optics. Purchasing an R7 is not the worst idea I have had, was just a bit unimpressed with the R7, however, may need to reconsider.
1 hour ago, Muriel said:OK, still trying to kick all this around, I feel I am locked in to Canon as I purchase the Canon R5 a couple months ago, without realizing some of the limitations I would have with R5 & Nauticam. I suppose I could take a loss on R5 and switch to Sony a1, however, now, am running out of time previous to a trip departure. At this point I am actually considering purchase of an R7, which that thinking has it's issues also, however, would be able to use WWL-1B I think, which would provide some savings on housing and Nauticam optics. Purchasing an R7 is not the worst idea I have had, was just a bit unimpressed with the R7, however, may need to reconsider.
I don't think there are really any limitations with Canon, the 28-70 lenses are a well proven solution and you can use the native 8-15 fisheye with it which with a 1.4x is a well proven direct replacement for the Tokina 10-17 with better optical quality. To use that with Sony you need a Sony-Canon EF adapter.
This Nauticam Thailand page linked above page has images shot with Sony lenses, however there is also a page shot with Canon lenses, find the album on this page: 
You can use the 8-15 lens in a 140mm dome port.
The thing to remember is that everything is a compromise with UW optics, the use of lenses underwater is not a design consideration at all when these lenses are produced and we need to accept that there is no really perfect solution. For still images any of the brands will have a solution that makes great images. You could sell off your R5 at a loss and end up with more or less the same images from a different camera. The WWL-1 works quite well with the little Sony lens, but I believe Interceptor has shown that the optical quality of the lens while acceptable is not the best around.
45 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:I don't think there are really any limitations with Canon, the 28-70 lenses are a well proven solution and you can use the native 8-15 fisheye with it which with a 1.4x is a well proven direct replacement for the Tokina 10-17 with better optical quality. To use that with Sony you need a Sony-Canon EF adapter.
This Nauticam Thailand page linked above page has images shot with Sony lenses, however there is also a page shot with Canon lenses, find the album on this page:
You can use the 8-15 lens in a 140mm dome port.
The thing to remember is that everything is a compromise with UW optics, the use of lenses underwater is not a design consideration at all when these lenses are produced and we need to accept that there is no really perfect solution. For still images any of the brands will have a solution that makes great images. You could sell off your R5 at a loss and end up with more or less the same images from a different camera. The WWL-1 works quite well with the little Sony lens, but I believe Interceptor has shown that the optical quality of the lens while acceptable is not the best around.
Thank you for the added link, I had not seen the Canon comparison, Thank you. As for the replacement of my 10-17 for APC, I do not need direct replacement. I used the Zen compact glass port for travel-ability, I am not interested in a large diameter dome, that is why the 28-70 with a WACP-C seemed a good option. I realize the weight of WACP-1 & C are heavy but somewhat more compact in diameter than a wide dome, compact would be my preference as I enjoyed using my Zen port with the 10-17. I am looking for improved sharpness from a new investment, again takes me to WACP-1 or more preferred the cost and smaller size of the WACP-C with the R5 compared to the WWL lens with anything. I have even considered the EMWL lens set up, however, the EMWL is obviously completely different type of wide angle and looks a bit of a challenge to have out front of camera and probably not any over all weight reduction when packing for travel. As time table to purchase is closing, I have cold feet. This past week received a report by somebody very reputable, they were disappointed in performance of WACP-C and the only way to go was WACP-1 on Canon or a WWL-1 (must be on Sony) as WWL-1B is not an option for Canon as I quickly learned with the help of this forum after my post. Everything a compromise, you have correctly stated. Shaving off 50-100+ mm in overall size and a couple pounds of weight by rethinking about an R7 or Sony a1, maybe just stick with the R5 and continue to manage the size and weight. I guess too much stuff to pack & haul is the burden of the addiction to UW Photography. If I was really serious about trimming my kit down, would/should have gone to Micro 4/3rd's kit. Once we invest in a housing that matches camera body, at least in my case, is a many year investment. Making a $14,000+ cost, a bit of a serious purchase. I thank you very much for your input, has been helpful in trying to move forward with purchase of housing and port(s).
If you're looking for compact and lightweight, your best bet is probably 8-15mm + 1.4x teleconverter in a compact dome. Nauticam recommends 140mm glass dome, but people here have reported successfully using it in a 4.33" acrylic fisheye dome, which is half the weight and cost of the glass one. Without the teleconverter, the 8-15mm gives you a circular fisheye at 8mm, and a 180-degree diagonal fisheye at 15mm; with a teleconverter I believe you get the 180-degree look (similar to Tokina 10-17@10mm) at 11mm, and going to 15mm lets you narrow it down a bit, putting you in the same ballpark as the 10-17mm as far as AoV goes. Oddly, I've seen little to no discussion of using a 2x teleconverter rather than the 1.4x one.
Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.
A worldwide community for underwater imaging.
