Wide Angle Recommendations for OM-D EM-5 or EM-1

[KarenW 0]

Hi all,

 

I'm about to jump to the Oly set up and would like to be a little more knowledgeable as to what is preferred and why. I do enjoy wide angle underwater photography, especially on Cocos (Keeling) Islands with our blue water and mantas. I also enjoy landscape photography so a "one lens fits all" to minimise the size of the kit would be marvellous. If it isn't practical, then so be it.

 

What are the preferred wide angle lenses for the OM-D EM-5 or EM-1? And, which ports for what lens?

 

Thanks in advance

Karen

[watboy 9]

If i'm traveling super light and pack only one port

4" dome - I can use both the olympus 9-18 and 60mm macro with this port.

 

If I'm bringing 2 ports, which is usually the case

4.33" dome - 8mm fisheye and olympus 12mm. I use the 12mm topside frequently.

flat port 65 - 60mm macro

 

The panasonic 7-14mm with the 6" dome port is also highly reviewed. I don't own this combo, because I don't have another lens i'd use behind this port. I would have to bring 3 ports with me if i wanted to do macro, wide and fisheye. Also its quite a bit more expensive than the Oly 9-18, but this is an expensive hobby so compared to total system cost, I don't think should be a deciding factor.

[Phil Rudin 439]

Olympus has just released the new 12-40 F/2.8 zoom which while expensive is a quite excellent lens. Nauticam will be supporting this lens with a gear and port option. I intend to use the lens behind the ZEN 170mm optical glass dome port with the proper extension. I am already using the ZEN 170mm port with the 12mm F/2 with no extension and the Panasonic 7-14mm zoom with a 20mm extension. This port can also be used with several other lenses like the Olympus 9-18mm zoom. I am sure that the 12-40 like the 12mm can also be used with the smaller 4.33 inch Nauticam port and extension. A flat port could also work but at the expense of the wider end of the lens. The ZEN 170mm port will NOT work with the 8mm fisheye which is more suited to a smaller port like the Nauticam 4.33 and 3.5 inch port with extension. You can also use the 8mm fisheye with the ZEN 100mm optical glass port and port adapter. You can like at my review of the ZEN 170mm port in a past issue of uwpmag.com.

[KarenW 0]

Olympus has just released the new 12-40 F/2.8 zoom which while expensive is a quite excellent lens. Nauticam will be supporting this lens with a gear and port option. I intend to use the lens behind the ZEN 170mm optical glass dome port with the proper extension. I am already using the ZEN 170mm port with the 12mm F/2 with no extension and the Panasonic 7-14mm zoom with a 20mm extension. This port can also be used with several other lenses like the Olympus 9-18mm zoom. I am sure that the 12-40 like the 12mm can also be used with the smaller 4.33 inch Nauticam port and extension. A flat port could also work but at the expense of the wider end of the lens. The ZEN 170mm port will NOT work with the 8mm fisheye which is more suited to a smaller port like the Nauticam 4.33 and 3.5 inch port with extension. You can also use the 8mm fisheye with the ZEN 100mm optical glass port and port adapter. You can like at my review of the ZEN 170mm port in a past issue of uwpmag.com.

 

Thank you Phil. I appreciate the above information I like the idea that I may be able to have just the one port and two lenses !

 

I think I would prefer to stick with the smaller Nauticam 4.33 and go with the 8mm fisheye. Hopefully in the near future you or someone will be able to confirm what extension is required.

 

 

Edited December 3, 2013 by KarenW

[manta ray 1]

Phil, just sold all my 4/3 stuff to move to micro 4/3. So far I've bought the M1, 12-50mm, 60mm macro and 40-150mm. Plan on getting the 8mm FE, 12-40mm, 7-14mm or 9-18mm and Nauticam M1 housing when it comes out. Question. Can the Olympus dome port be used on a Nauticam housing? If not it's for sale. I definitely purchase a large dome for the over/under shots but 4.33 dome would be nice for travel, but it would be my second choice after a large dome port. BTW here is shot I made with your 7-14mm.

 

 

 

 

[Phil Rudin 439]

Hi Manta, no adapter for Olympus threaded ports to Nauticam at this time. As I stated above I use the ZEN 170mm optical glass dome which is much like the Olympus glass port. It will work with several of the M43 lenses both fixed and zoom, It will NOT work with the 8mm fisheye. The Nauticam housing should be out before the end of December if this go well.

 

Phil

[manta ray 1]

 

Thanks Phil for the info again.

[Phil Rudin 439]

News flash, Nauticam has just E-mailed me to say that they will now be developing a port adapter for the old Olympus ports for Olympus 43 lenses like the 7-14 & 11-22 zooms and the Olympus 8mm fisheye. This means that all of the Olympus style threaded ports from Athena, Inon, Olympus and others will be adaptable to the Nauticam Mini housings.

 

This is especially good news for those moving to the Olympus EM-1 and Nauticam NA-EM1 housing. The EM-1 has the best auto focus support for the 43 line of lenses. Keep in mind that these ports and adapter will not work with the M43 lenses.

 

Phil Rudin

[oskar 6]

Could the 714 be used with the 4.33" Nauticam dome + some extensions?

 

 

Edit: Sorry, i meant the Panasonic m4/3 7-14 zoome with the above question. But perhaps the answer is the same anyhow?

 

//O

Edited December 28, 2013 by oskar

[Phil Rudin 439]

Not if you want decent image quality.

[oskar 6]

Perhaps not a preferred wideangle, but I have the panasonic pancake 14mm f2.5 for stealthy topside lens.

 

I've seen it in Nauticam's port-chart recommended with the 3.5" dome.

 

How does it perform UW? Could it also work with the 4.33" dome? Has anyone here tried that lens with it's wide-angle addition lens?

 

Cheers

/O

 

PS I wish there was a m43 prime around 7-9mm....

[oskar 6]

How well does the 12mm f2 perform with the small Nauticam 4.33" dome with respect to corner sharpness and maximum usable aperture with that respect?

 

I expect that your larger ZENdome allows usage of larger apertures than the smaller 4.33" dome? However, for me it might still be worthwhile getting the 12 f2 as I have the 4.33 dome anyway. I would be using the 12 f2 for documentation, (maritime archaeology) so sharpness is an issue, and so is light

 

EDIT: I saw below that you have first hand experience of with the 4.33" dome as wel Phil, how do they compare?

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-403387.html

 

 

 

Cheers

/O

 

 

... I am already using the ZEN 170mm port with the 12mm F/2 with no extension and the Panasonic 7-14mm zoom with a 20mm extension. This port can also be used with several other lenses like the Olympus 9-18mm zoom. I am sure that the 12-40 like the 12mm can also be used with the smaller 4.33 inch Nauticam port and extension...

 

 

If I'm bringing 2 ports, which is usually the case

4.33" dome - 8mm fisheye and olympus 12mm. I use the 12mm topside frequently.

flat port 65 - 60mm macro

Edited January 31, 2014 by oskar

[coroander 16]

Hi Oskar,

I'm currently working with the 12mm in the 4.33" dome port. The corners are a little soft at f/8, but quite manageable, edge sharpness is as good as the 12-50mm behind the flat port (but the 12mm f/2.0 is significantly wider behind the dome). It's possible that this lens behind the 3.5" semi-dome would perform slightly better.

 

Recently i've been trying (dry) close-up lenses on the 12mm behind the 4.33" dome. The reason for this is that the 12mm doesn't focus down to 0.10m like the 8mm FE. Placing a 52mm +5 diopter on the front using a 46mm to 52mm adapter, allows much closer focusing (underwater the long edge is about 17cm, vs 37cm w/o a diopter). However, because of the lack of depth of field at the close focus, the strongly curved 4.33" dome results in rapid loss of sharpness away from the centre. I'm thinking the ideal solution for the 12mm will be the 3.5" semi-dome without the extension (as Nauticam recommends) but with a +X diopter -- i haven't seen this tried (yet).

 

That said, i'm very happy with the images from the 12mm behind the 4.33" dome. Corner sharpness is much better than i often see from big DSLRs with very large domes. I don't hesitate to use this lens. It's sharper in the centre and has better contrast underwater than the 12-50mm behind the flat port.

 

Anyway (12mm behind 4.33" dome corner sharpness test, f/6.3 no diopter):

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/35911162/12mm-1.jpg

 

Edited February 1, 2014 by coroander

[oskar 6]

Thanks alot Coroander!

 

I had some hopes of getting usable result almost wide open, but it probably takes another dome with bigger radius then.

 

The diopter would help most at close focus, or also at medium distance, what do you recon? The dome's virtual image when the subject is at infinity is still quite close, isnt it?

 

My mate that I use as reference, that get good results all the way up to 2.0, did not know what dome he uses, "Old Olympus" which then probably is a large Zen or Athena dome.

 

But, It seems like decent results anyhow, so'Ill get the 12 as a compliment to my fisheye now anyway and see how it goes.

 

BTW something that would be very useful is some proper dome port data on the Nauticam ports (and others for that matter). I'd like to know the radius and optical node for the ports to be able to predict results. for example, what radius and optical nod distance from the sensor is the 4.33" fisheye dome and the 3.5" dome?

 

Cheers

/O

 

 

 

 

Hi Oskar,

I'm currently working with the 12mm in the 4.33" dome port. The corners are a little soft at f/8, but quite manageable, edge sharpness is as good as the 12-50mm behind the flat port (but the 12mm f/2.0 is significantly wider behind the dome). It's possible that this lens behind the 3.5" semi-dome would perform slightly better.

 

Recently i've been trying (dry) close-up lenses on the 12mm behind the 4.33" dome. The reason for this is that the 12mm doesn't focus down to 0.10m like the 8mm FE. Placing a 52mm +5 diopter on the front using a 46mm to 52mm adapter, allows much closer focusing (underwater the long edge is about 17cm, vs 37cm w/o a diopter). However, because of the lack of depth of field at the close focus, the strongly curved 4.33" dome results in rapid loss of sharpness away from the centre. I'm thinking the ideal solution for the 12mm will be the 3.5" semi-dome without the extension (as Nauticam recommends) but with a +X diopter -- i haven't seen this tried (yet).

 

That said, i'm very happy with the images from the 12mm behind the 4.33" dome. Corner sharpness is much better than i often see from big DSLRs with very large domes. I don't hesitate to use this lens. It's sharper in the centre and has better contrast underwater than the 12-50mm behind the flat port.

 

Anyway (12mm behind 4.33" dome corner sharpness test, f/6.3 no diopter):

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/35911162/12mm-1.jpg

 

 

[coroander 16]

Time for some results at f/2.0

 

Just placed a 52mm B+W NL5 +5 diopter on the front of the Oly 12mm lens (using a 46-52mm adapter) and re-ran the test with the 12mm wide open at f/2.0. Previously i'd only looked at close focus, but i had a suspicion that these lenses would curve the focus plane (or maybe push the entrance pupil forward). The results at 0.9m are amazing.

 

Olympus 12mm f/2.0 under Nauticam 4.33" dome @f/2.0, with +5 diopterr:

 

Olympus 12mm f/2.0 under Nauticam 4.33" dome @f/2.0 with no diopter:

Edited February 1, 2014 by coroander

[coroander 16]

And in case you're wondering what the 12mm f/2.0 looks like at f/8 with that +5 diopter under Nauticam 4.33" dome:

Edited February 1, 2014 by coroander

[coroander 16]

Infinity focus underwater behind the 4.33" dome is 0.22m. Which pretty much puts the optical radius at half of the diameter (4.33").

I know the 6" wide angle port and the 4" wide angle port share the same optical radius.

I don't own the 3.5" wide angle port, but it certainly looks like it may well share the same optical radius with the 4.33" dome.

 

The B+W NL5 diopter seems to cause a light loss of 1/3 stop.

 

Using a 52mm B+W NL2 +2 diopter always produces inferior results.

 

It very much appears that the image in post #13 was actually taken with a B+W NL2 +2 diopter on the lens. Here's a confirmed image taken at f/8 behind the 4.33" dome with the Oly 12mm and no diopter:

Edited February 2, 2014 by coroander

[oskar 6]

Great! It seems like a great difference.

 

So is it right to say that the +5 diopter makes the corner sharper at all subject distances?

 

So I should get a diopter at the same time as a lens! Is there any drawbacks getting the actual 46mm diopter and not use stepring?

B+W 46mm Close-up +5 Lens (NL5)

 

EDIT: 1/3 stop loss light is great compared to stopping down 3 stops to get sharper corners!

 

 

 

Cheers

Oskar

Edited February 2, 2014 by oskar

[coroander 16]

I won't use this lens underwater again without the diopter.

 

Just looking at the geometry of the 52mm +5 with a step up ring and it seems like there should be no large difference between doing this and using a B+W 46mm +5 directly. I think the 46mm is preferable and may produce somewhat better results.

 

The focus distance changes very little behind the dome -- since the virtual image only extends from about 0.10m touching the dome to about 0.22m (maybe 0.26m) at infinity, and for distances from 1m and beyond, there's very little change at all. So no reason to believe there won't be a similar improvement at all focus distances. I'll try a close focus test (at minimum focus for no diopter) sometime.

Edited February 2, 2014 by coroander

[nudibranco 26]

excellent tests!!

I have the 3.5" dome and have thought it is a great dome for the 8mm FE lens especially for CFWA shots.

I suppose (but have not tried it) you could use the same port with extensions and use that same port for the 60mm macro lens and the 12mm lens. I would say that is a versatile and super compact option.

I did try the 9-18mm (I use it a lot for topside) behind the 3.5" but with no luck as it just distorts the edges too much (but maybe with a +X diopter it may work out).

[oskar 6]

It would be interesting to try the 9-18 behind the 3,5 dome. I would be happy it it was possible to optimize fore the wide end and just use that, skipping zoom. Providing that part of the soft corners are caused by lens nodal point being off the dome's optical center.

As i mentioned: i've been suggested 2 20mm extensions + the 4.33" dome should work with the 9-18. That would be interesting to get a second opinion on.

Cheers

 

EDIT:

 

A measurement of the nodal point shift of the 9-18 (and other lenses) can be found here:

 

http://olypedia.de/Nodalpunkte_E_System

or

http://forum.fourthirdsphoto.com/attachments/discussion/41308d1328482916-finding-nodal-point-panoramas-less-equipment-nodal-points.pdf

 

 

 

The nodal variation is 6mm between the ends of the zoom, is that excessive?

 

/O

Edited February 5, 2014 by oskar

[coroander 16]

Nauticam lists using the 3.5" semi-dome with a 20mm extension as an alternative to using the 4.33 dome.

I strongly suspect that better results would be achieved with the 12mm using the 3.5" and no extension but with the +5 diopter.

 

Definitely try a diopter on the 9-18mm. I'd be strong included to try diopters on this lens behind any of the ports, including the recommended 4" semi-dome.

Behind the 3.5" semi-dome, did you use an extension? A 30mm or a 20mm or even 2x 20mm extensions would seem to be reasonable with this lens behind the 3.5" semi-dome.

[coroander 16]

I'd be more inclined to try the 9-18mm behind the 4.33" dome with one 20mm (or maybe a 30mm if one was available, i'd think 2x 20mm would be too much). But you'll almost certainly need (or want) a diopter. And it may be the case, like with the 12mm that a strong diopter (e.g. +5) is better than just a small (e.g. +2) correction. In part this is because diopters are less effective at shorter focal lengths. But guessing is little substitute for testing :-)

 

I should add to this, that the 4" semi-dome that's designed for the 9-18mm is going to be the best port for the lens. However, it may still be significantly better with a +x diopter on the lens.

Edited February 7, 2014 by coroander

[kraft2000 0]

I recently came back from a diving trip in Soccoro, and tried for the first time the EM5 with the 12mm f2.0 under the 4.33'' dome port.

I didn't have any strobes (next thing I will buy for sure), and shooted only using ambient light.

 

I'm still a novice in underwater photography and did some beginner mistakes ...

For example I let the camera in P mode : most of the time it picked an aperture of f2.0 making the depth of field too shallow and the corners very soft.

I should have brought a magic filter as well, especially if shooting in ambient light and for videos.

 

Fortunately I was able to correct the blue color using a simple white balance on the RAW file in Aperture, and did my best to correct the videos in Final Cut.

 

Anyway I'm quite happy with the results !

 

video :

 

iso 200 f2.5 1/125

 

 

iso 200 f2.5 1/125

 

iso 200 f2.0 1/60

 

 

iso 200 f2.2 1/100

 

iso200 f3.5 1/250

 

 

iso200 f3.2 1/200

 

 

iso200 f3.5 1/200

 

iso200 f4 1/200

 

iso200 f2.8 1/125

 

 

iso200 f2 1/60

Edited February 13, 2014 by kraft2000

[oskar 6]

Nice,could you add the details for those please, are all those f2.0?

 

On the large-animal photos you don't notice any corner softness for natural reasons, but on close focus it is quite marked

 

 

I recently came back from a diving trip in Soccoro, and tried for the first time the EM5 with the 12mm f2.0 under the 4.33'' dome port.

I didn't have any strobes (next thing I will buy for sure), and shooted only using ambient light.

 

I'm still a novice in underwater photography and did some beginner mistakes ...

For example I let the camera in P mode : most of the time it picked an aperture of f2.0 making the depth of field too shallow and the corners very soft.

I should have brought a magic filter as well, especially if shooting in ambient light and for videos.

 

Fortunately I was able to correct the blue color using a simple white balance on the RAW file in Aperture, and did my best to correct the videos in Final Cut.

 

Anyway I'm quite happy with the results !

 

video :