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):
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).