lufik

1/160sec at f/10 BTW took me quite some time to find a picture, where corners really do matter. With a fish-eye perspective corners are usually blue water or background. So in reality corner sharpness is not as significant as for example on macro shots.

See some example of quality - more than acceptable for me. I look at 100% pictures only when post-processing, prints are different story and these pictures print really good. 100% crops from center and corner

Nice pictures! With little bit of photoshop I can fix the corners easily. Also corner sharpness is acceptable. Thank you. Cannot wait to get this combo under water. Problem solved!

One vignetting and one not, score 1:1 did not help much @jwmm2 - how bad is the vignetting? Could you, please, share uncropped image for reference?

Hello I cannot decide between ordinary 4.33" fisheye port or the 3.5" dome for Panasonic 8mm fisheye. I read all available topics and still do not have answer to one last question. Will it vignette? What scares me some people have vignetting while others with the same combo do not experience any. Anyone having an experience with Nauticam case for Olympus E-PL5 with the lens? I've seen one facebook post from Alex Mustard showing one picture. Should I play it safe and go for 4.33 or risk and get the 3.5 and its amazing WAM capabilities? Any experience or advice is more than welcome. Thank you. Lubo

Actually I find the combination very nice to shoot with. Was little bit disappointed with it, but after investing into +2 macro diopter the lens/port combination produces great results when shooting bigger objects. Corners are not the sharpest in CFWA photography, but still quite acceptable. I travel light with only this one port and use it for 9-18 and 60mm macro. For the price (and the fact it fits zoom gear for 14-42 that I already owned) I could not be happier. I posted some examples in this forum, but cannot find it now.

I am using it behind Nauticam dome for Oly 9-18mm and it works very well. So well I am not sure if it is worth the hassle of having to change ports when I switch to this lens. Only minor issue is port size - getting it close to reef without scratching it - and possibility of better magnification with flat port. This chicken hairy shrimp was tiny bit bigger than tip of diveguide stick, it is cropped heavily but the detail level is still amazing.

Hi all I am proud owner of this marvelous lens, and been using it so far behind dome port for 9-18mm. The idea of one port fits all (9-18, 14-42 and 60mm) is fantastic. But macro became my main interest now (yep, I can finally see detail of critters I cannot enjoy live underwater due to my vision :-) ) and I am considering buying Nauticam macro port for this lens. The question is how much advantage it will bring me in an area of coverage. I know theory - water makes everything 1/3 bigger and dome port compensates for this. So if I use flat port I should be able to achieve higher magnification. I am not after supermacro as taking picture of things I cannot see at all is confusing :-D , macro capabilities of this lens are just perfect for me. How much higher the magnification will be? Preferably if anybody can share example pictures to show the difference. And what will happen with working distance, especially how far/close the object will be from the front glass of flat port? Thanks L.

@Stroker - the shot is at 9mm. Corners at 9mm are not improving much when stopping down. I haven't done any scientific testing, and underwater not many things are parallel to camera. So corners are mostly even worse than the example I posted. Attached is 100% crop of center and corner of picture shot at 1/60s at f8, ISO1000, 9mm. However the pictures still print well on A3 size and look fabulous on 65" TV. I also had the idea of using diopter and I have dry tested +4 closeup lens. The result was great magnification but unacceptable pincushion distortion. I've decided to return the diopter and test again with +2 when local waters get warmer. If you find any information or samples, please, share.

Thanks for tip how to attach pictures. Here is 100% crop of center and corner; shoot at 1/60s at f13, ISO 400.

Corner sharpnes at 9mm is not terrific and in my experience is not improving much with stopping down (I have tried up to f14 and would not call it great). But comparing with samples from other lenses behind domes, I start to get feeling I could be expecting too much ;-) The issue disappears at around 11mm and up. I have samples ready, but do not know how to post them here, sorry.

Hello all What is the physical difference between Nauticam zoom gears for Olympus 14-42 and Olympus 9-18 lenses? I have zoom gear for 14-42, and just out of curiosity before ordering new gear I tested it on 9-18. I was able to mount it without using any excessive forces and it worked well in housing. Is there a reason I miss to have a specific gear for the 9-18? Thanks L.

Similar question about NA-EPL5. I leave for diving trip in 10 days, but nauticam europe was not able to answer when the housing will be available. I have it ordered for 2 weeks already, but it seems I will not be taking pictures with it soon When is the housing for epl5 expected to be available in europe?

I am in very similar position myslef. My compact camera is dead and micro43 seems to be great upgrade. I already have EPL5 and I love this camera, my DSLR collects dust since I own it. I went through my UW pictures and realized I am not in need of macro capabilities, so I am looking at wide angle options. I went throug galleries, tried search functionality of this forum and google, but have not come across any samples from Olympus 9-18 behind nauticam 4' wideangle port. Could anybody share samples showing CFWA capabilities of this combination or share his experience?