Review of the new Nauticam wet wide angle lens WWL-1

[Interceptor121 768]

Nauticam seems to have developed the wet wide angle lens with the best optical quality currently on the market

Will be on sale end of this month

I had the opportunity to jump in the pool yesterday with it

 

Nauticam WWL-1 Wet Wide Angle Lens Review | Interceptor121 Underwater Photo & Video Blog

http://interceptor121.com/2015/09/14/nauticam-wwl-1-wet-wide-angle-lens-review/

 

Will perform further tests in the ocean weather permitting next weekend

[thetrickster 328]

It seems that going with a compact and wet lenses, seems a more more cost effective route these days, the optical quality is right up there with native WA sense now...

[Interceptor121 768]

This lens also works with micro four thirds. In terms of corner sharpness in my opinion it's better than the 7-14mm Panasonic however not rectilinear. For video wet lens on micro four thirds are more effective in than changing ports especially as you can zoom through

[thetrickster 328]

Would be interesting to see this with the 14-45PZ vs. the 7-14mm

[Interceptor121 768]

You mean the 14-42 power zoom? For that lens the port sits a bit too far from the glass to have great quality and may vignette Nauticam test shots are taken with a shorter 29mm port. If it is the 14-42PZ you want I can do some test shots with the GX7. I believe the wet lens will work better with the normal 14-42 mega OIS (kit lens) as the lens is closer to the glass and the sharpness is better too

Edited September 14, 2015 by Interceptor121

[kc_moses 142]

What aspect ratio did you use when shooting the Sneil window? That will change the field of view of the camera.

[Interceptor121 768]

The field of view of the lx100 in diagonal terms doesn't change except in 1:1 for still images. I shot them in 4:3 if recall correctly

[V_kids 3]

Hi,

Do you need to change the front port to the Short port N50?

I'm using Nauticam G7X,

In order to use Inon UWL 100 28ad, I need to use Nauticam short port N50.

If i keep using the Standard port from Nauticam G7X, it will be vignetted.

 

How about this new wide angle lens?

It would be nice if i dont need to buy the Nauticam short port N50

 

 

Andree

[Interceptor121 768]

You need the short port on the Lx100 and G7X

[Interceptor121 768]

Edward Lai has written me and confirms a bayonet system will be available for both the WWL-1 and CMC

[Atobit 20]

Nauticam also released a new flat port for the Sony A7/A7II Housings to be able to fit this lens with the good 28mm F2.

 

I might have missed it, why will you use that wet lens with an interchangeable lens camera system when fisheye lens is available? To get a more compact system than a large dome?

For the cost of the system? This lens seems to be a the same price level as a dome.

How about the quality image comparison with a Fisheye lens? Especially in the corner?

Will you be able to compare the 14-42+WWL-1 to the 8mmFE+dome?

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Interceptor121 768]

That's correct the WWL-1 should work on full frame with a 28mm lens. The WWL-1 is mainly aimed at compacts however in terms of image quality in the corners it is better than rectilinear lenses on micro four thirds. For what concerns the fisheye comparison the WWL-1 is actually much heavier than domes even glass ones. The key benefit for a micro four third user is the support of zoom through so you can use the WWL-1 in the whole focal range 28-42mm instead if changing ports. So the comparison must be done with Panasonic and Olympus 7-14mm plus dome not with fisheye. I will do a whole range of tests with micro four third when I get another lens from Nauticam as I had to give back the one on loan and didn't have time to finish all tests. I think I should have it back in two weeks

Edited September 22, 2015 by Interceptor121

[tamas970 12]

I'd be interested how it compares to a Nikonos 15mm on sony FF. Flexibility is great, the only thing one needs is a basic zoom and you are served with wide+macro on the same dive.

[tamas970 12]

Revisiting the Nauticam system charts, the one for the A7II definitely mentions the WWL-1! (FE2/28 lens, & N100 being the prerequisite). Nikonos alternative in the making?

[tamas970 12]

Nauticam also released a new flat port for the Sony A7/A7II Housings to be able to fit this lens with the good 28mm F2.

 

I might have missed it, why will you use that wet lens with an interchangeable lens camera system when fisheye lens is available? To get a more compact system than a large dome?

For the cost of the system? This lens seems to be a the same price level as a dome.

How about the quality image comparison with a Fisheye lens? Especially in the corner?

Will you be able to compare the 14-42+WWL-1 to the 8mmFE+dome?

 

Image Quality - if the optical design of the WWL-1 and the 2/28 is a match - can be better. Domes are far not the perfect solution for wide angle. The reason why we use domes is that

no one made a superior wet lens up to its task. The WWL-1 might be a candidate.

 

That's correct the WWL-1 should work on full frame with a 28mm lens. The WWL-1 is mainly aimed at compacts however in terms of image quality in the corners it is better than rectilinear lenses on micro four thirds. For what concerns the fisheye comparison the WWL-1 is actually much heavier than domes even glass ones. The key benefit for a micro four third user is the support of zoom through so you can use the WWL-1 in the whole focal range 28-42mm instead if changing ports. So the comparison must be done with Panasonic and Olympus 7-14mm plus dome not with fisheye. I will do a whole range of tests with micro four third when I get another lens from Nauticam as I had to give back the one on loan and didn't have time to finish all tests. I think I should have it back in two weeks

In water you're absolutely right, on air big domes are also heavy. However, WWL-1 is a semi-fisheye, which can be substituded by a smaller dome & a fisheye lens if I am right. -> An 6" acrylic fisheye dome will be definitely a lighter & cheaper option than the wwl.

 

Right now I am curious which is the better solution for an A7II overall?

1. Sony 2/28+sony fisheye adapter, behind a fisheye port

2. Sony 2/28+flat port+WWL1

3. Nikonos 15mm. (The 13mm is rainbow unicorn category, with its corresponding price tag).

Edited October 28, 2015 by tamas970

[JackConnick 76]

The A7II + 28mm+WWL1 looks like a winner. It gets the system back a lot smaller and actually lighter than the 16+35+adapter+ext+180mm glass dome.

 

[tamas970 12]

Thanks Jack! Looks very convincing:) IQ-wise it seems a viable option, and size definitely matters in case I try to squeeze these gems in my hand luggage.

(forgot to add, that there are no huge cost differences among the 3 option).

 

After I got my ufl-G140 on my gopro I became a fun of wet lenses and in general non-dome solutions. I'll do my homework and try to get some non-cropped/reduced files to help the decision.

[Basil 13]

I'm considering the WWL-1 and the Nauticam short port, for my LX100 set-up. I am headed to the Silver Banks to see the humpback whales early next year, and I am toying with the idea of an even wider angle setup than the minidome port, which I already have (about 85 degree field of view).

So how heavy is the WWL-1 underwater -- does it tip the LX100 into a more negatively buoyant setup?

 

Does it WWL-1 vignette on the LX100? How is overall optical quality?

[Interceptor121 768]

Around 600 grams negative. It works well at 28mm and stops vignetting around 26mm. Compared to the minidome it feels around 900 grams heavier so quite a lot more

[silenthunter 0]

WIll the WWL-1 function with the Ikelite housing using a Sony RX100 lll ?

[New England Diver 0]

Looking at an EM10 mk2 for a trip to Socorro in May and find it difficult to decide between the WWL-1 and the OLY 9-18 for wide angle.

The 7-14 OLY pro would be my first choice but the cost is just too high for me and the required SLR size glass dome somewhat negates the benifit of an OMD for travel. Really hoping Interceptor121 can point a novice in the right direction. Thanks for the help

[Draq 118]

Maybe this can help:

 

https://www.opticaloceansales.com/olympus-epl-7-with-nauticam-wwl-1-and-cmc-lens-review.html

 

https://gotmuck.com/nauticam-narx100mkiv-review/

 

Also, issue 87 of UWP

 

http://www.uwpmag.com/

 

FWIW, unless you are really seeking the ability to shoot wideangle and non-wideangle on the same dive, I believe an 8mm fisheye or 7-14 in a good glass dome is a better choice, but I have to see any actual and useful comparisons. I think the WWL-1 is larger and much heavier than one might expect and unless attached all the time, creates some handling issues.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Draq

[tamas970 12]

AFAIK domes limit your aperture range to f/8 and darker for 4/3, while the WWL-1 allows f/5.6: http://interceptor121.com/2015/11/26/nauticam-wwl-1-macro-port-29/

[Interceptor121 768]

In socorro you are not really going to remove the wet lens. I think the 9-18mm is a useful lens to have on land but hopefully depending on what you will see a bit narrow. I would go with the WWL-1 or the panasonic 7-14mm. You will most likely have water background so sharper corners are less important. The 7-14mm with the 6" dome is light in water the WWL-1 really heavy but gives more zoom range

[Draq 118]

AFAIK domes limit your aperture range to f/8 and darker for 4/3, while the WWL-1 allows f/5.6: http://interceptor121.com/2015/11/26/nauticam-wwl-1-macro-port-29/

Domes do not limit aperture per se. Perhaps you mean to suggest that corners look OK on the WWL at 5.6 while some domes require stopping down further to clean up the corners? If so, corner sharpness when using domes is dependent on the lens, the dome construction and the size of the dome as well as aperture. I also have to think that the WWL corner performance is affected by which lens one uses, and at what focal length (assuming it is a zoom).

 

Unless and until someone actually does a performance comparison between a 7-14 or even a 9-18 in a 170 or 180 glass dome and the WWL-1 with appropriate lens, we can only speculate. Unfortunately, most people with a 7-14 and a glass dome aren't going to go out and buy a WWL-1 to play with, and vice versa. Comparisons of the WWL to a fisheye are not an apples - oranges kind of comparison and the 9-18 has not proven itself to be a particularly great performer underwater, at least not in one of the small ports usually used with that lens.

 

Keep in mind the WWL is on par with a 170 or 180 glass dome, price wise. WWL-1 and a really good zoom lens vs. a 9-18 in a 4" port, I am pretty sure the WWL-1 is the better performer, but to me, that is like saying a FF Nikon with a highly-rated fisheye zoom in a 230mm dome performs better than a EM1 with the Lumix 8mm fisheye. It is true, but does it mean anything in the real world?

 

Understand, I am not criticizing or dismissing the WWL-1, but it is neither cheap nor light weight nor small and comparing it to the 9-18 in a 4" port doesn't make sense to me.

 

I am not sure this discussion is actually in the right place. It seems like it is a mirrorless topic and not a compact camera topic...

 

Maybe it should get moved?

Edited March 5, 2016 by Draq