Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Introducing Nauticamís WACP - The Wide Angle Corrector Port: Discuss Here


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#61 hyp

hyp

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts

Posted 26 September 2018 - 07:51 AM

I really wonder, if they could make smaller ones for N85 or even for the compact N50 system. Maybe it's just too expensive?



#62 unregistered

unregistered

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 23 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 September 2018 - 01:13 PM

Hoping someone will test out the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 with the WACP for Sony shooters... an article on Nauticam's website indicates that the Sony FE 28-70 f/3.5-5.6 OSS works, but this kit lens isn't the best top side afterall.

 

Seems a waste to have such an investment in a wet lens coupled with a $300 piece of glass behind it!


Edited by unregistered, 27 September 2018 - 01:14 PM.


#63 guyharrisonphoto

guyharrisonphoto

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Florida
  • Interests:Macro, big critters, coral reefs, kelp, I love it all!

Posted 27 September 2018 - 02:36 PM

Why couldn't at 24-70 or 24-105 work, just limit zooming to 28mm on the wide side?



#64 MarkD

MarkD

    Moray Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Location:Cardiff, Wales, UK

Posted 28 September 2018 - 06:01 AM

Most of these kit lenses extend considerably with zoom. I expect at worst, some lenses may collide on zoom with the WACP and possibly cause damage unless used with a long port extension, in which case they may not perform well optically at the wide end. I have also read that lenses with smaller front elements - slower aperture - work better optically with the WAPC. Maybe someone from the Nauticam world can comment as this is relevant to potential use with the new Nikon Z series where there is a narrower range of autofocusing lenses?
 


Edited by MarkD, 29 September 2018 - 12:36 AM.


#65 guyharrisonphoto

guyharrisonphoto

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Florida
  • Interests:Macro, big critters, coral reefs, kelp, I love it all!

Posted 30 September 2018 - 06:12 AM

I dont get that. How could nauticam design a $4000 lens for an obsolete slow aperture slow screw drive AF lens from one manufacturer and not for modern optics? Or for cheap slow kit lenses? Yes indeed they have some serious explaining to do.

#66 brandoncole

brandoncole

    Sting Ray

  • Industry
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts

Posted 30 September 2018 - 07:09 AM

Does anyone out there have experience shooting stills with the WACP and Canon full frame? Specifically with the recommended zoom lenses, the old Canon 28-70 f3.5-4.5 version 2, and the Canon 28-80 f3.5-5.6 version 5? Especially when coupled with the Canon 5d4?



#67 oneyellowtang

oneyellowtang

    Moray Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 75 posts

Posted 30 September 2018 - 11:52 PM

As someone who just recently started shooting with the D850 + WACP (and the 28-70mm lens), I've been very impressed with the corner sharpness and versatility of the lens/port combo.

 

I initially bought the WACP for shooting whales (while snorkeling) in French Polynesia, but after (mostly) striking out on finding the humpbacks u/w (we had very limited # of days), I ended up using the lens on a few dives in Tetiaroa. 

 

A couple of points worth making:

- the 28-70mm is fairly fast on a D850. Never had an issue with the lens, in a number of different lighting conditions. Yes - it would be great if there was a more modern lens with similar zoom range to use, but this combo works much better than I expected.

- My rig with the WACP is easy to handle underwater. No issues with size/buoyancy while diving. For carrying to/from the dive boat, I just carried my arms & strobes in my backpack, and carried the housing + WACP by the lanyard. It was manageable (certainly not light, but I actually felt more comfortable carrying this combo than my older housing & and large dome). The attached (hard plastic) port protector is definitely (much) more sturdy & protective than a neoprene port cover - with the WACP port protector on, it feels like any small bumping is really not going to have much impact on the port (whereas with a dome you're always extremely protective because of the potential any bump/scratch to cause havoc). As an example, I had the housing & WACP on the floor of a small boat (sitting on a towel, with another towel over it) for 3+ hours (2 days in a row) while we were searching for whales - some jostling - no issues.

 

One thing to keep in mind - just like with a superdome, strobe placement/power (and coverage angle) becomes super important. I have a set of Z330's on order to help with this. The Z240's I've been shooting with were fine for most situations, but not quite wide enough in some cases.



#68 Alex_Mustard

Alex_Mustard

    The Doctor

  • Super Mod
  • 8597 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peterborough

Posted 01 October 2018 - 01:24 AM

I dont get that. How could nauticam design a $4000 lens for an obsolete slow aperture slow screw drive AF lens from one manufacturer and not for modern optics? Or for cheap slow kit lenses? Yes indeed they have some serious explaining to do.

 

 

My understanding is that the physically bigger the lens you want to use behind a lens like the WACP, the bigger the WACP has to be. And to make it work with a 24-70mm (f/2.8), for example, the WACP would have to much, much bigger to give any measurable image quality advantage over the current WACP and 28-70mm. And as such would weight 7-8KG and cost $10,000. So this approach was not considered because the current WACP and 28-70mm gives really noticeable image quality advantages over anything else available covering the same FOV underwater. I also feel that the simpler design of older lenses is better suited to being incorporated as part of the optical setup of the new lens (the WACP + zoom lens). 

 

I did test more expensive 28-70mm lenses with the early WACP prototype (not the production version) and these did not perform as well behind the WACP as they Nikon 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5. Despite being better lenses out of the water. 

 

The hard thing to get our head around is that a relatively cheap, old lens can out perform an expensive new one. Because we've all bought expensive pro-glass and seen the difference it makes to our pictures out of the water. What you have to factor in is how much image quality a dome port in water gives away. Which is much more than the difference between the old and new lenses. This is why the WACP works. The reason the WACP is not made for the latest pro lenses on land is that it would end up way too large to travel with and cost way too much (and actually gives relatively little improvement because there are diminishing returns on the water corrected optics). It is already at a size that causes production issues because of the availability of such large pieces of optical glass (bigger than even the mega expensive super telephotos). 

 

Alex


Alexander Mustard - www.amustard.com - www.magic-filters.com
Nikon D5 (Subal housing). Nikon D7200 (Subal housing). Olympus EPL-5 (Nauticam housing).


#69 Alex_Mustard

Alex_Mustard

    The Doctor

  • Super Mod
  • 8597 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peterborough

Posted 01 October 2018 - 01:27 AM

Does anyone out there have experience shooting stills with the WACP and Canon full frame? Specifically with the recommended zoom lenses, the old Canon 28-70 f3.5-4.5 version 2, and the Canon 28-80 f3.5-5.6 version 5? Especially when coupled with the Canon 5d4?

 

 

British photographer Will Clark has used the WACP on canon FF pretty much exclusively for the last year. He is a good source to ask questions:

 

He recently posted his contact email on his Facebook page (second post down, currently):

 

https://www.facebook...MW8F9j4&fref=nf


Alexander Mustard - www.amustard.com - www.magic-filters.com
Nikon D5 (Subal housing). Nikon D7200 (Subal housing). Olympus EPL-5 (Nauticam housing).


#70 brandoncole

brandoncole

    Sting Ray

  • Industry
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts

Posted 01 October 2018 - 07:10 AM

Thank you, Alex. I will reach out to Will Clark.



#71 guyharrisonphoto

guyharrisonphoto

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Florida
  • Interests:Macro, big critters, coral reefs, kelp, I love it all!

Posted 02 October 2018 - 01:42 PM

 

 

My understanding is that the physically bigger the lens you want to use behind a lens like the WACP, the bigger the WACP has to be. And to make it work with a 24-70mm (f/2.8), for example, the WACP would have to much, much bigger to give any measurable image quality advantage over the current WACP and 28-70mm. And as such would weight 7-8KG and cost $10,000. So this approach was not considered because the current WACP and 28-70mm gives really noticeable image quality advantages over anything else available covering the same FOV underwater. I also feel that the simpler design of older lenses is better suited to being incorporated as part of the optical setup of the new lens (the WACP + zoom lens). 

 

I did test more expensive 28-70mm lenses with the early WACP prototype (not the production version) and these did not perform as well behind the WACP as they Nikon 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5. Despite being better lenses out of the water. 

 

The hard thing to get our head around is that a relatively cheap, old lens can out perform an expensive new one. Because we've all bought expensive pro-glass and seen the difference it makes to our pictures out of the water. What you have to factor in is how much image quality a dome port in water gives away. Which is much more than the difference between the old and new lenses. This is why the WACP works. The reason the WACP is not made for the latest pro lenses on land is that it would end up way too large to travel with and cost way too much (and actually gives relatively little improvement because there are diminishing returns on the water corrected optics). It is already at a size that causes production issues because of the availability of such large pieces of optical glass (bigger than even the mega expensive super telephotos). 

 

Alex

 Ok thanks for that insight alex.  I plan to go mirrorless, what about the new Nikon S (or the older Sony/Zeiss) 24-70 F4 zoons--still to big in the front element?  Unfortunately the old nikon 28-70 won't work with the new Z cameras.


  • hyp likes this

#72 errbrr

errbrr

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 05 October 2018 - 01:07 PM

I agree it would be nice to see more feedback from those being used in the wild. My understanding is that they are still fairly backordered and maybe Nauticam hasn't been able to keep up with demand. Being on backorder is enough time to change your mind and buy something else!

 

I would desperately like one for the caves but can't justify the cost. In aussie dollars with the extension ring and new (even cheap new) lens, it's close to $7k. I guess maybe if I sold my Canon 14mm and domes that would make a dent in the price but then I'd be shooting with the WACP on every dive, all the time. If it was to be my main wide angle rig I'd like to hear from other people using it day to day for all their diving, not just special trips or special dives.