Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Nauticam WACP - does it makes sense to change?


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 SMY

SMY

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany
  • Interests:photography, diving, hiking in the mountains and everything with an Apple on...

Posted 10 February 2019 - 11:08 AM

Hi,

I photograph mainly with my Nikon D850 in a Nauticam housing with 16-35 or with the 8-15 fisheye.

I have currently a look on the WACP......ok, I know it's additional budget, but what do you think....does it makes sense for an ambitious amateur?

Regards, Sascha
Nikon D850, Nauticam NA-D850 housing, Nauticam TTL-Converter 26308, 2 x INON Z330, Nikon 16-35, Nikon 8-15 Fisheye, Nauticam 230mm port, Nauticam 140mm Fisheye port, ULCS arms with StiX floats

#2 Alex_Mustard

Alex_Mustard

    The Doctor

  • Super Mod
  • 8603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peterborough

Posted 11 February 2019 - 02:47 AM

I think it depends on what subjects you are planning to shoot. For me, on some trips it is my most used lens, on others I don’t even travel with it. It is great for big animal destinations with unpredictable diving (e.g. Galapagos, Maldives). But I prefer the straight fisheye when shooting scenics. 

Alex


Alexander Mustard - www.amustard.com - www.magic-filters.com
Nikon D5 (Subal housing). Nikon D850 (Subal housing). Olympus EM10-Mk3 (Nauticam housing).


#3 SMY

SMY

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany
  • Interests:photography, diving, hiking in the mountains and everything with an Apple on...

Posted 11 February 2019 - 03:38 AM

Hi Alex,

thanks as usual! Now it's complicated: I usually dive at Red Sea offshore reefs like Panorama, Elphinstone,....of course I like there shooting scenics ke coral walls, turtles, napoleons and with some luck sharks.....especially for the later fisheye is sometimes challenging ;-)

Regards, Sascha

Edited by SMY, 11 February 2019 - 03:39 AM.

Nikon D850, Nauticam NA-D850 housing, Nauticam TTL-Converter 26308, 2 x INON Z330, Nikon 16-35, Nikon 8-15 Fisheye, Nauticam 230mm port, Nauticam 140mm Fisheye port, ULCS arms with StiX floats

#4 Interceptor121

Interceptor121

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1971 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Weybridge, UK

Posted 11 February 2019 - 09:53 AM

Hi Alex,

thanks as usual! Now it's complicated: I usually dive at Red Sea offshore reefs like Panorama, Elphinstone,....of course I like there shooting scenics ke coral walls, turtles, napoleons and with some luck sharks.....especially for the later fisheye is sometimes challenging ;-)

Regards, Sascha

 

For sharks your 16-35 should be ideal with a large dome for blue water shots at around 18mm?


Check my video, pictures and blog

YouTube Channel

Flickr Sets

Blog


#5 SMY

SMY

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany
  • Interests:photography, diving, hiking in the mountains and everything with an Apple on...

Posted 11 February 2019 - 12:02 PM

Yes, that's my experience, too... that's why why I'm on the one side curious about WACP and on the other side hesitate, if there is a benefit....And because sharks are so rare...I want to be prepared for scenics, turtles, etc...
Nikon D850, Nauticam NA-D850 housing, Nauticam TTL-Converter 26308, 2 x INON Z330, Nikon 16-35, Nikon 8-15 Fisheye, Nauticam 230mm port, Nauticam 140mm Fisheye port, ULCS arms with StiX floats

#6 TimG

TimG

    Sperm Whale

  • Moderator
  • 2294 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam
  • Interests:Sunlight reefs, warm seas, good food and fine wine. And Manchester City Football Club.

Posted 11 February 2019 - 01:10 PM

I'm with you guys on the 16-35 for sharks (and dolphins) in the RS.

 

I was looking at the WACP at Boot. It looks an amazing piece of kit but, wow, BIG, heavy and very expensive. In terms of transportability, I reckon the WACP would be even harder to move around than the 230 dome port (and, as has been pointed out many times, shark/dolphin shots often don't require sharp edges - especially out in the blue - so the smaller 8" dome can be enough).


Tim
(PADI IDC Staff Instructor and former Dive Manager, KBR Lembeh Straits)
Nikon D500, Nikkors 105mm and 8-15mm, Tokina 10-17mm,  Subal housing

http://www.timsimages.uk
Latest images: http://www.shutterst...lery_id=1940957


#7 Edward Lai

Edward Lai

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hong Kong

Posted 12 February 2019 - 12:14 AM

I would suggest for anyone who is interested of, or not sure of the rationale behind, the WACP to read the review by the Honorable Dr. Alex Mustard here:

 

http://www.wetpixel....-corrector-port

 

Alex has been so supportive in contributing his time and effort, at his own cost, in field testing 2 different versions of the WACP at various sites during the development of the lens.  It was only possible from his personal hands-on experience, and with his extensive knowledge and constant pursue of ultimate image quality, that he can help return his valuable feedback to me for making improvement before the final launch of the product. 

 

I would not have been involved in optical design without the inspiration and encouragement from Alex.  It has been a most enjoyable journey for myself !

 

Edward


Edited by Edward Lai, 12 February 2019 - 12:18 AM.


#8 Interceptor121

Interceptor121

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1971 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Weybridge, UK

Posted 12 February 2019 - 08:56 AM

I would suggest for anyone who is interested of, or not sure of the rationale behind, the WACP to read the review by the Honorable Dr. Alex Mustard here:

 

http://www.wetpixel....-corrector-port

 

Alex has been so supportive in contributing his time and effort, at his own cost, in field testing 2 different versions of the WACP at various sites during the development of the lens.  It was only possible from his personal hands-on experience, and with his extensive knowledge and constant pursue of ultimate image quality, that he can help return his valuable feedback to me for making improvement before the final launch of the product. 

 

I would not have been involved in optical design without the inspiration and encouragement from Alex.  It has been a most enjoyable journey for myself !

 

Edward

 

Nobody was suggesting the WACP is not a good piece of equipment I believe the comments were more about how this lens fit certain situations in Egypt where there is not an abundance of pelagics and you just get the isolated shark in some circumstances. So being stuck with a 130 degree lens may not be the solution as the sharks may not come close and the 130 may not be the right choice for some of the other CFWA shots


Check my video, pictures and blog

YouTube Channel

Flickr Sets

Blog


#9 SMY

SMY

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany
  • Interests:photography, diving, hiking in the mountains and everything with an Apple on...

Posted 12 February 2019 - 09:56 AM

Exactly!
@Edward: there was never the intention to question, that the WACP is a very good piece of equipment and without Alex' articles I would have never thought about a change....and I think Alex knows, that he ispires me all the time and I have received a lot of helpful hints and tipps from him....

Regards, Sascha
Nikon D850, Nauticam NA-D850 housing, Nauticam TTL-Converter 26308, 2 x INON Z330, Nikon 16-35, Nikon 8-15 Fisheye, Nauticam 230mm port, Nauticam 140mm Fisheye port, ULCS arms with StiX floats

#10 Marcelo Krause

Marcelo Krause

    Moray Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 15 February 2019 - 09:17 AM

I did some testing this past weekend for my own. Not very technical, but here are my very initial impressions:

 

Zoom Range

The WACP+28-70 combination will give you a bigger zoom range, it is wider and and will have a little more reach. Don´t know the exact numbers, but that is the impression that I´ve got

 

Distortion

At close distances on  the wider end:

The 16-35 have a strong pincushion distortion

The WACP has more of a fisheye kind of distortion that I think it is more pleasant, but that's personal taste.

At medium to long distances at wide end

The 16-35 has less distortion, keeping straight lines more in shape. More rectilinear.

The WACP maintain it´s fisheye kind of distortion

 

At the zoom end

Both lenses have little distortion.

 

Sharpness

 

At the very center they are similar along the zoom and aperture range.

 

At close distances on the wider end:

I would avoid using the 16-35 wider than F8 (F11. F16 and F22 are preferable, F8 the limit). The corners are not sharp at F5.6 and F4.

I would say the corners on the WACP are sharper than on the 16-35 on every aperture. I would use it until F4, maybe F3.5 in an emergency( the image becomes softer overall). F8 to F16 gives the best results.    

 

At medium distances on the wider end:

The advantage of the WACP corner sharpness is still there, but less noticeable. I would use F8 on the 16-35 more comfortably , specially on open water subjects.

 

At medium distances at the zoom end

The overall feeling is that the WACP advantage becomes more noticeable at the corner of the images as apertures get wider.  Buy not as a strong difference as it is at close focus on the wider end. I would avoid using the WACP at F4.5. at 70mm and 16-35 at F5.6 and F4

 

I use the 9,25in dome port for the 16-35. I don't have the sea sea correction lens. People are claiming a 2 stops sharpness increase. If that's true I would not use the 16-35 without it.

 

About the WACP

The nikon  28-70 is not a very good lens on land. At wider apertures it is specially bad. Lots of CA and softness. At F8 I would say it is very good. How the lens delivers a very nice performance with the WACP underwater is beyond my understanding. CA is almost gone.

 

I brought the WACP for mainly two reasons:

The first, I am doing some kind of pictures that required a lens that has a zoom range, that is not ultra wide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel), is capable of very close focus (at the dome) and would have good corner to corner sharpness.

The second would be to use a fast aperture lens underwater with sharpness (Converted 13mm RS would be another option)

I can use the 28mmF1.8 at F2 or F2.8 and have a very good image (when focused at infinity). Even at f1.8,  i consider it produce acceptable images.

 

Flare

On rare occasions, with the lens pointed at the sun. the WACP would produce a flare that is very visible at the image. It must me a very specific angle/position because other images with a very similar framing/composition did not have any flare.

 

WACP negative points:

price: it is very very expensive.

Size/weight: with almost 4KG it is as heavy as the housing+camera. With airlines restrictions going tighter every day that is for me a major drawback.    

It can not do split shots ( it can if you modify some o-rings from what i've read, but i haven't tried)   

It has a shade, but i would say that the front element is more exposed that i wished

 

Long term use will produce a more useful opinion.

 
Regards
 
Marcelo 
 
28mm_1.jpg
Lens_TEST_JAN2019_1635.jpg
Lens_TEST_JAN2019_1953.jpg
 

  • SMY likes this

#11 SMY

SMY

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany
  • Interests:photography, diving, hiking in the mountains and everything with an Apple on...

Posted 15 February 2019 - 11:07 AM

Thanks a lot Marcelo for the very helpful information!!

Sascha
Nikon D850, Nauticam NA-D850 housing, Nauticam TTL-Converter 26308, 2 x INON Z330, Nikon 16-35, Nikon 8-15 Fisheye, Nauticam 230mm port, Nauticam 140mm Fisheye port, ULCS arms with StiX floats