Full Frame SLR wide angle corrector port tests

[jordi 3]

While testing the lens!

[adamhanlon 0]

Hi Jordi,

 

Thank you for doing these tests and sharing them with us!

 

Can you let me know the apertures that the test shots you posted were at please?

 

All the best

 

Adam

[jordi 3]

Thanks Adam!! Both pictures are at f/11

[tamas970 12]

Great Kudos Jordi for the tests, it definitely looks interesting. To me, the filter version looks good enough, question is if we get the same clear corners at f8, f5.6?

 

To me, a break-point to invest would be f5.6, which I don't feel fulfilled even from the thumbnail size marketing samples. I suppose the wet-lens approach will

be more succesful, because this corrector still needs a huge dome. Besides, it can only be fitted on certain lenses, no chance on a fisheye...

 

Camera-wise I suppose you were on full-frame? How much does the lens effect the FOV?

[adamhanlon 0]

I wil be shooting it at a range of apertures on the Nikon 16-35mm. We will see, but with a large dome it should be OK at f8 I guess. I hope to also use a range of domes too.

 

Why would you want correction on a fisheye? All the current ones focus close enough to give good corner performance even at f8?

 

The wet correction lenses I have seen all weigh as much as a large dome! There is a lot of glass in them.

[tamas970 12]

Yes, they do reasonable f8, but there are times, when ~f4 could come handy. Besides, f8 on modern sensors (a7rII, 5DS) is

already diffraction territory.

[jordi 3]

Here I post another corner sample, now at f/8. As you can see the improvement is less evident when compared with the F/11 picture (Camera: 5DmkIII; lens: 17-40mm)

 

Edited November 16, 2015 by jordi

[nortoda1 13]

Would be great to see the results on the s&s 240mm dome that it was designed for.

[tamas970 12]

Here I post another corner sample, now at f/8. As you can see the improvement is less evident when compared with the F/11 picture (Camera: 5DmkIII; lens: 17-40mm)

 

Thanks, f11 seems to be the limit. I don't expect much better with the S&S240 dome either, it's roughly the same size.

[nortoda1 13]

It's not just the width of the dome e.g. I have both a zen 230mm and s&s 240mm, not much difference in diameter, but the curvature of the domes are radically different. The s&s is significantly shallower, with the zen being far more rounded, extending approx 25mm more at the centre. Not a dome port expert, but to me it would make sense that the curvature is as important as simply the diameter.

Edited November 16, 2015 by nortoda1

[jordi 3]

I had the opportunity to borrow a Sea&Sea 240mm Port. In fact the port has 240mm but the glass (acrylic) has less diameter than the glass 9,3" dome I used in my first test. The S&S dome has a dome of 210mm aprox. The radius of curvature seems bigger that the glass dome.

In my tests the results are quite similar to glass dome and improvement is around 1 stop better with filter attached.

I attach a crop at F11.

[tamas970 12]

Great report Jordi, it seems FF is stuck at f/11 with domes, even with this new "aspheric diopter" thingy. Lesson learned: until similar converters that Alex shown or the WWL-1

became more common I'll stay away from FF. With the rise of the WWL-1 I feel/hope the days of the dome ports are counted.

 

BTW what does the dome theory say for fisheyes? I keep reading that fisheyes are more forgiving, still they give their best under superdomes...

[adamhanlon 0]

I've been shooting the Sea&Sea correction lens over the past few days, in the pool and in open water.

 

I have been using the Nikon 16-35mm with a Seacam Superdome

 

My gut feeling is that I have got the advertised 2 stop improvement on the corners. I need to do some more pixel peeping to be sure and will post the results on the front page when I do.

 

With the D810, being able to shoot at f8 and get reasonable corner performance is a big deal. In the low light conditions that I was shooting in, it really helps keep the noise under control

 

Adam

[jordi 3]

Hi Adam,

 

Thanks for the info.

I've been thinking that maybe my results are not so good because I am using the old 17-40mm.

Some months ago I tried the new 16-35mm f/4 IS with the EOS 5DsR (50Mp) and the corners where very good, much better that the 17-40mm. So, I guess that with the S&S lens attached to the 16-35mm the results will be better.

I'll try to borrow it again and try it!

[Tom_Kline 137]

I received my copy of the Sea & Sea internal correction lens from Reef Photo & Video (Thanks!) late yesterday and started working with it today on a Canon 16-35mm IS lens on a 1Ds3 in a Seacam housing with a superdome. Looks promising so far. See attached image.

 

The M77 sized lens is slightly over-sized similar to certain filters designed for wide angle lenses. As well, there is no female threading. So it is not possible to attach a 77mm lens cap on the filter, e.g., when leaving it on the camera lens out of the housing.

Tom

Edited November 23, 2015 by Tom_Kline

[nortoda1 13]

Great info Jordi, Adam and Tom. Looks like it may be worth investing.

[Tom_Kline 137]

Did some more shooting with the ICL today. Swapped the 16-35, ICL, etc. and shot it @ 16mm on my 1DX to take advantage of the better AF. The in-focus corners are particularly impressive. No corner smearing! I am attaching a full frame and a blow-up of the lower right hand corner.

Tom

[jordi 3]

Hi Tom,

 

Which f/stop are you using?

Thanks

 

 

Jordi

[adamhanlon 0]

Nice Tom!

 

I will be posting some of my results today too....

 

Adam

[Tom_Kline 137]

Hi Tom,

 

Which f/stop are you using?

Thanks

 

 

Jordi

f/11, you should be able to see the EXIF data.

Nice Tom!

 

I will be posting some of my results today too....

 

Adam

Looking forward to them!

Thanks!

Tom

[adamhanlon 0]

Hi all,

 

I am going to try and get the pool shots up on the Wetpixel front page later today.

 

In the meantime, here are a series shot in open water. All were taken with a Nikon D810 with a Nikkor 16-35mm f4, a Seacam Superdome and 70mm extension:

 

 

 

 

 

 

The results look pretty good I think....

 

Adam

[tamas970 12]

@Adam: it seems it is as good as it can be, to make it more clear you have to filter the water around the wreck:)

 

Jokes apart: I suppose the bare superdome shouldn't deliver too bad here either, all 4 corners here show water, where you cannot judge sharpness.

[adamhanlon 0]

True...

 

I have a series of pool shots that show the corners coming soon.

 

Adam

[jordi 3]

Finally I had the opportunity to test the filter in a pool, in a more controlled situation. I also tried the Canon 16-35mm F4 IS, IMHO a better corner performer than the 17-40mm I was using in my previous tests. I have tried different combinations (230mm glass dome port and Sea&Sea Fisheye "acrylic" port) and I got slightly better results with the 230mm glass dome.

The improvement is near the claimed 2 stops, which is very good news. At F8 the corners are very good and at F11 they are perfect.

[nortoda1 13]

Wow, looks like an impressive improvement