48 replies to this topic

[Ryan]

@Ryan: "At any given field of view WACP (with a compatible lens) will be sharper in the corners than any lens behind a dome resulting in the same FOV at the same aperture."

 

Is this true for rectilinear WA lenses only - or is this also the case for fisheye lenses?

 

 

Wolfgang

 

Hi Wolfgang - that is an interesting point of clarification, and something worth testing.  Thinking from the full frame perspective I didn't see a direct FOV equivalency, but on DX a 15mm or so fisheye is roughly equivalent to the 18-19mm lenses with WACP.  

 

I'll see if we can test that in the lab.

[MJvC]

Hi Ryan

Thanks for the replies.

I saw somewhere someone using the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens on C200 with a WACP. Would this give more versatility (in terms of angle of cover) using a S35mm (DX) type sensor or would you still  recommend the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM for S35 format.

Also  is the front element of the WACP replaceable by a Nauticam service center like Reef (or would it require sending back to Nauticam HQ if it got scratched) and what would the cost be to replace that element.

[jordi]

Hi Alex,

 

I've been checking the images you linked, which are very nice as always, and I've seen than in most of them you are using high F/stops. The  image quality is very good even in the corners but I am wondering what happens when you use open f/stops.

I've been checking some images by Todd Winner (at Nauticam's website), and even at low res you can see that at F5,6 the corners are not good. If this is the case I think is a very expensive investment if you must use a very old lens behind, which has slow autofocus and you are bound to use closed f/stops. So the only real avantage would be a bigger zoom range than with any other lens... Am I right?

 

 

There are more example shots from WACP on my website now - to show how it can be used. I have over 100 up there now, they are sorted chronologically, so newest are first: 

 

http://www.amustard..../search/"28.0"/

 

If the link does not work - search for: 28.0 

which brings up pictures taken with 28mm lenses (or 28-70mm) which is covers my use of the WACP.

 

Currently away shooting in the Indian Ocean - and expected to use the lens a lot (although it will be a while before I process, keyword and caption the best shots from this trip to add to my website). 

 

Alex

[twinner]

Hey Jordi,

 

f/5.6 is not going to be as sharp as f/11 or any high f stop but it is sharper than a dome at the same f stop and same FOV. That image in the cave is a bad example as I shot it with a slow shutter speed and probably introduced some camera movement. Overall I find it to be much sharper in the corners than a dome and the zoom range is pretty incredible.

 

Todd

Edited by twinner, 09 March 2018 - 10:01 AM.

[Walt Stearns]

Since I am also coming from the DX (Nikon D500) shooting camp, I am curious if the WCAP will work with the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED Lens. The lens features a comparable 35mm focal length equivalent of a 27 - 52.5 mm on DX format camera.

 

Physical dimensions of the lens run approx. 3.27” in diameter x 3.74" long (83 x 95 mm), which do not change when the zoom is racked out to 35mm like it does with the Nikon’s 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G. The lens takes a 77mm filter, but I don’t quite understand what the issue is there where Ryan Canon mentioned it his post. 

 

Walt

[Alex_Mustard]

Hi Alex,

 

I've been checking the images you linked, which are very nice as always, and I've seen than in most of them you are using high F/stops. The  image quality is very good even in the corners but I am wondering what happens when you use open f/stops.

I've been checking some images by Todd Winner (at Nauticam's website), and even at low res you can see that at F5,6 the corners are not good. If this is the case I think is a very expensive investment if you must use a very old lens behind, which has slow autofocus and you are bound to use closed f/stops. So the only real avantage would be a bigger zoom range than with any other lens... Am I right?

 

 

 

Hi Jordi, 

 

The main reason for the higher apertures in many of my shots is photographic.

I guess it comes down to the fact I am using the lens now, not testing it, so I am selecting apertures based on what is appropriate, rather than what would test the ability of the lens.  Most of the images I have shot recently are in bright, shallow conditions and I am close to the subjects (so I have lots of flash). The small size of the WACP is advantageous in such situations compared with a big dome. Also when I am close focusing on a subject (such as the turtles) I needed to use a small aperture (not for corner sharpness, but for adequate depth of field). This is something that you need to consider with both the WACP and the RS-13mm.

 

Also, after last summer I returned the WACP to Nauticam and I am waiting for my own one to be ready (I just heard that it is). Since I still had an pre-production prototype of the WACP at home (much smaller and not as good as the final WACP, but still better than a dome port) I used that lens in Mexico, Florida and have it with me on my current trip. If the official WACP is 2-3 stops ahead of a dome, the prototype is about 1.5 stops (both have the same field of view). So I would use my more recent images as a guide to the types of shots that the WACP, rather than a measure of quality - as the production WACP is better.

 

Finally, although the 28-70mm f/3.5-f/4.5 is an old lens - it is a sharp one. Also it is actually has a faster aperture than the 16-35mm, which is f/4 (although it isn't AF-S). For wide angle subjects I don't find the AF a limitation.

 

Alex

[jordi]

Thanks a lot Todd and Alex for your answer!

I'd really appreciate if you can post any picture at F5,6 or lower when you have the final WACP Unit.

Thanks a lot for your help

 

Jordi

[MJvC]

Have Nauticam come out with a Newer Compatibility Chart with Zoom and Focus Gear part numbers for Nauticam's Cinema Housings If so please can you put up a link.

I am also looking for any Pool Chart Tests for this optic.

Thanks

[miguelpereira]

@AlexMustard: thanks for the wonderful detailed WACP review. I have a doubt that I was hoping you could help. I know it's an apple to oranges comparison but what's the resolution difference between a fisheye lens (the Nikon 8-15 @15mm for example) in a 230mm dome and the WACP?