benignor
-
Content Count
27 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Recent Profile Visitors
3676 profile views
-
Thank you all, as usual, this conversation is very informative and helpful. For the most part, I-m inclined to go with the 170 after the points made above, but the possibility of adding a wide rectilinear option in the future with the 230 sure has some appeal. But can somebody point me in the right direction about the removable shades? The folks at Bluewater tell me that neither the 170 nor the 230 has removable shades, and looking in the Zen website, they don't say one way or the other. I don't see in the pictures the external O-ring that allows for shade removal on the 100mm. Is there a newer model of these and if so, does anybody have a link? Thank you again for everybody's help!
-
-
-
Thank you! Indeed, I have to think about portability. mt-m, since you have used both the 230 and the 180, do you see a substantial difference to justify the bloated size and price tag? Here are some samples with the 100mm Zen. More forthcoming.
-
Hi, everybody. In case this thread is useful to somebody else, I thought I'd report back. I went with the Canon 8-15 via Metabones and the Zen 100mm port. As several of you stated, this combo worked beautifully. I did not notice any difference in autofocus performance compared to a native lens, which was my main concern with this option. Optically, the Canon looks fantastic to my eye. Also as expected, over/under shots are a challenge with this setup (I did try, however). Now I'm considering investing in a large-ish dome to try to get into splits. The difference between the 170 mm and the 230 mm is over $1K. My next question is, does the difference between those two justify the price tag? Thank you all again! P.S.:HOW DO I POST SOME PICS?
-
Thank you, Chris! Over/unders are not a top priority for me, so I'll go with the 140.
-
Everybody, Thoughts on what size dome to pair with the 8-15 on this system? I am told that I have a choice of 140 or 230? Thank you all again,
-
Thank you! This seems to be the consensus, and I've made up my mind - just ordered this setup. Will post some samples when I return from my trip!
-
Hi, I'm sorry I missed the notification of new replies to this topic. Phil, thank you very much the context about the water contact optics of the Nauticam products, and especially for the sample pics. This is extremely helpful. I'll have to make a decision soon, as my trip is coming up next month. Phil's input put me one step closer to the decision being to stick with my current setup. But if I decide to go with one of the other options, and if this topic remains open, I'll post some samples when I return.
-
Thank you Barmaglot and ChrisRoss. I read the explanation and the referred post carefully. Again, extremely helpful. Thank you for taking the time to provide that information. To answer the question, a bit of background: I have known for some time that there are many shots (think scenic, wrecks) that folks get that I cannot get with the WWL. If I try to get, say the whole body of a wreck in the frame, I have to back up so far that the result is unusable. yet, other folks (including those on the same boat, on the same dive) can get the shot easily. Another example is big fish schools: my shots don't do justice to the scene, because I can only get so much of the school in the frame unless i back way up, and then 10-pound jacks look like a bunch of sardines. It works just fine for regular reef scenes and for CFWA. But I was wondering if I'm really missing out on the more dramatic pics that folks with fisheyes or really wide rectilinear with big domes can get trouble-free. The reason I'm a bit anxious about is is that I have two upcoming workshops, in Gran Cayman, and in the Read Sea, which are heavily aimed at wide angle, big scenics, and controlling light. So, that's what Im' trying to shoot: Really large subects, fish schools, wrecks, and large scenics. So I asked the workshop leader, and he did suggest that having a fisheye option would be very desirable. I don't want to put anybody on the spot, but I know said workshop leader has been known to make some appearances in this forum, so (ahem) if he happens to come across this thread, it would be great to have his input. With that in mind. I wanted to look at these options. The 2 questions I have remaining are: will the 12-24 be any wider than the 28mm + WWL-i? We know that the 16-35 is not. And, should I really be apprehensive about having only a fisheye setup for my entire wide angle work during a multi day trip? Or is that setup still reasonably flexible, especially at the 15 mm end? And this will be yet another stupid question, but at 15 mm, pics will not be circular, correct? Thank you all, this is really helping me get to a decision, and I hope the detailed and clear explanation will be useful to a future reader.
-
Thanks, Barmaglot, That is a very, very helpful and clear explanation of the effect of a dome port. I didn't even think of the fact the the WWL-1 is called a LENS for a reason! Am I understanding correctly then that the FoV would still be narrower with the 12-24 than with the 28mm + WWL-1 (i.e., 122 vs. 130)? Looking in the Nautical port chart, the recommended port is the 230 mm, which also would not change the lens' native FoV, right?
-
Thanks, Barmaglot. Just for my education, the 180mm dome would not widen the FoV of the 16-35 the way the WWL-1 does to the 28mm? I ask out of ignorance.
-
Hi, I'm using the Sony A7R II in Nauticam housing, with the Sony FE 28mm f2 and Nauticam WWL-1 as my setup for wide angle. Lighting is Sea&Sea YS-D1 x2 + iTorch 2800 focus light. I am interested in a wider option, up to and including fisheye. The intended application is upcoming wide angle workshops in the Red Sea and Cayman. I looked at the fisheye converter for the 28mm lens and corresponding ports and domes. My concern is being stuck with only one photography "look" (fisheye) and one focal length for an entire trip, as I cannot imagine traveling with both setups. I am considering the Sony FE 16-35mm GMaster with Nauticam 180mm glass dome or Canon 8-15mm via Metabones adapter as possible alternatives. Could I get some advice on these choices? If anybody has hands-on expereince with any of these setups, that would be especially useful. Some specific questions: 1. Is the concern about the fisheye converter justified? Or would that option still give enough flexibility for general use? 2. Would the 16-35 option be a significant improvement over my current setup? I cannot find info on the expected field of view of this setup anywhere. 3. How close to a native lens is the performance of the Canon 8-15 via adapter on this camera underwater? I don't consider myself a very skilled photographer, and even a modest drop in autofocus performance would very likely cripple me. Thank you very much!
-
THIS ITEM IS NO LONGER FOR SALE. ADMINISTRATORS: PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD.
-
************************** PRICE IS NOW $500! **************************