Introducing Nauticam’s WACP - The Wide Angle Corrector Port: Discuss Here

[Ryan 50]

I currently use Olympus EM5-MII, NA-EM5MII, Zen DP170-N120, Nauticam 60mm Extension with Panasonic 7-14mm 4.0. Acccording to your data, shown in Alex's review, the WWL-1 with kit zoom-lens would perform better than this combination.

=> is this true in real life?

=> would the new WACP even perform better?

=> where is the rest of the data available (e.g. also center performance)?

 

In these combinations, the kit lens + WWL-1 is so good that I'm not sure how much benefit is left to be realized with WACP. In my personal opinion the real life benefits are greater than we can currently show in lab tests due to limits in our testing equipment and the extreme versatility and quality across the entire zoom range that WWL-1 offers. Further testing might change my opinion on this with some unique larger diameter lenses on m4/3, but I can recommend WWL-1 without hesitation.

I love the splits from Jeremy and David, and really like the drama in the thick and flowing water lines that splits with small domes create. They have a very different look, and that may not always be desirable, but appreciate the uniqueness and challenge to capture. The o-rign sourcing for WWL-1 was actually driven by a request from Eric Cheng using RX100 for high frame rates i the Bahamas, and I think the first o-ring that worked was a YS-250 strobe battery compartment o-ring.

Here is another review on WWL-1: https://www.bluewate...l1-review-tests

The conclusion is the opposite to the recent Wetpixel review: WWL-1 is simpler to use with MFT and FF (Sony), but image quality is better with WW-lenses plus dome ports.

 

In my own experience this style of testing makes it really hard to get consistent, controlled results. In my tests WWL-1 + 28mm was a bit narrower than the Sony 28mm + Fisheye Conv combo. WWL-1 had soft corners, but they affected much less of the frame. This isn't a completely fair test, the Sony fisheye behind a dome was wider, but given the choice between the two I would take WWL-1.

There are situations where a full frame fisheye lens (like Sigma 15mm or Canon 8-15) and a metabones adapter will be more appropriate than the WWL-1 combo because of its wider fov with great overall image quality.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Ryan

[Architeuthis 156]

Thank you, Ryan for sharing...

 

A question: I have the 12-40mm 2.8 Zuiko Pro lens. Would the WWL-1 (or WACP) give better results with this lens, compared to the standard zoom lenses, or does it perform worse?

 

Wolfgang

[Bumbi.dombovari 3]

Hi there,

 

Do you have any experience with Sony FF/28-70 with WWL-1?

Or we have to wait for WACP.

Ryan?

 

Thanks

Bumbi

[Alex_Mustard 0]

Do you have any experience with Sony FF/28-70 with WWL-1?

Or we have to wait for WACP.

 

I am not really involved in the Sony mirrorless community, but I am sure lots of people have shot that. I have seen Cheungy Diver shooting the WWL-1 and 28mm back in 2015.

 

Alex

[Kogia 3]

Ryan -

The chart to which you linked in your Sep. 30 message is dated June. Have you tested more lenses since then? Can you post an updated chart?

I understand that you are only testing lenses from 28mm because wider lenses will vignette with the WACP. However, as previously noted, Nikon has discontinued its 28-70mm lenses and replaced them with 24-70mm lenses which offer significant optical and other improvements. A more modern lens would be an advantage for use outside the housing. The fact that it would vignette at its widest setting would pose no obstacle to using it behind the WACP within the 28-70mm range (or even using it wider in situations where losing the corners would not be a problem). Could we have some tests with a lens that is actually currently available? Would also love to see a test of the Sony 28mm f2.8 on a Sony FF behind the WACP. Mahalo.

[Kogia 3]

Ryan -

It would also be very helpful if you could specify the maximum lens diameter that can be effectively used within the WACP, perhaps using front filter thread size as a proxy, since this is more widely reported on lenses than the actual diameter. The excellent review by Alex and Jason failed to specify if they were using the Nikon 28-70mm f2.8, which has a 77mm filter thread, same as one of Nikon's current 24-70mm f2.8 lenses) or the Nikon 28-70mm f3.5-4.5, which has a filter thread of only 52mm. Some more clarity with regards to the exact limit on the size of lens that could be used would go a long way toward helping us envision the range of lenses that could potentially be used. Thanks. Very excited about the potential of this new tool, and grateful for the R&D effort that Nauticam has put into this.

[errbrr 73]

Looking at the Canon lenses I already own, I'm guessing I need to go shopping. The 14mm is obviously out as being too wide. I have a Canon kit lens 24-105 f4 that I used once underwater and never again - is that likely to be too big for the WACP at 664g? Would the Canon 24-70 be a better choice?

 

What characteristics are most important for a lens behind the WACP?

1. >28mm

2. Minimum focus to less than ??cm in air

3. Physical size of less than ??kg or less than ??cm long/wide

 

If Nauticam would like some Canon field testing done I'd be more than happy to help out

[Alex_Mustard 0]

 

Ryan -

It would also be very helpful if you could specify the maximum lens diameter that can be effectively used within the WACP, perhaps using front filter thread size as a proxy, since this is more widely reported on lenses than the actual diameter. The excellent review by Alex and Jason failed to specify if they were using the Nikon 28-70mm f2.8, which has a 77mm filter thread, same as one of Nikon's current 24-70mm f2.8 lenses) or the Nikon 28-70mm f3.5-4.5, which has a filter thread of only 52mm. Some more clarity with regards to the exact limit on the size of lens that could be used would go a long way toward helping us envision the range of lenses that could potentially be used. Thanks. Very excited about the potential of this new tool, and grateful for the R&D effort that Nauticam has put into this.

 

 

Physically smaller diameter lenses are definitely better with corrector ports, which tends to mean using older lenses. The large front elements of the latest generation of lenses would require huge corrector ports to work as well as the older lenses. And as Ryan says these would just be too heavy and too expensive - importantly with very little improvement in image quality - remember it is the port that the bottleneck on image quality, not the lens.

 

The lenses I tried behind the WACP have been Nikon 28mm f/2.8, Nikon 28-70mm f/3.5-f/4.5 and Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8-f/2.8. I know that Jason Isley also used the Nikon 28mm f/1.8.

I don't own the Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8-f/2.8 and considered buying one second hand. But speaking with Edward at Nauticam he thought that it might not offer any advantage over the f/3.5-f/4.5 with the WACP - which is actually a sharp lens, despite being small and slow. I will try it one day.

I tried the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8-f/2.8 with an earlier prototype of the WACP and also send my lens to China for Nauticam to test in the lab with the production WACP. But for luggage allowance reasons I haven't retested in the field.

 

I would like to try more lenses - but the focus thus far has been evaluating the WACP - and it was sensible to all be using the same lenses to do that, rather than introducing another variable. For me the best lens was the 28-70mm f/3.5-f/4.5.

 

So far the emphasis has been testing the WACP philosophy and I am sure that in the coming months as more people have a chance to shoot it - we will get better information on the best lenses to use.

 

Alex

[MJvC 9]

Has any one tried the WACP with a Red Weapon and a 17-55mm or any other DX Kit lenses. Very interested in this for video work in the 6K-8K range i.e. 1,3x - 1,6x crop.

[Rui_Guerra 6]

Has any one tried the WACP with a Red Weapon and a 17-55mm or any other DX Kit lenses. Very interested in this for video work in the 6K-8K range i.e. 1,3x - 1,6x crop.

 

 

I'm also with you since I'm also a user of RED 6K. Much more info is needed with other lens combinations.

In video, we need all the light that we can and there are many times where we need to shoot wide open (depending on the lens that could be f4, f2.8 or even wider).

 

So far the recommendation emphasis had been in a slow 3.5 - 4.5 lens, which is of limited use for video work in less then ideal light conditions (if we have ideal light conditions, we could use smaller apertures, so no real need for the WACP). In my point of view, it's biggest usefulness is where the dome ports start to fail, at wider apertures, let's say from f5.6 and wider f-stops. So we really need to know how it performs in the f2.8 range and even f1.8 or f1.4.

 

I know that in the real work we don't shoot test charts but to see the sharpness in the corners, we need that someone goes to a pool, shoot at a flat test chart in a pool's wall, at wide open f-stops, both with the WACP and a big dome (for example a 230 cm), and post the photos. Only then we can really see the improvments and how many stops do we gain in sharpness. Shooting reef corals and real underwater scenarios is nice, but doesn't provide us with objective data.

[MJvC 9]

Are there any updates with regard to new lenses (i.e. DX or EFs lenses) or test charts that have been shot with the WACP

Edited March 5, 2018 by MJvC

[Akoni 11]

Has anyone tried the WWL-1 with a DX camera or do you need to step up to the WACP?

[Ryan 50]

I haven't looked at this in a while, so have six months of catching up to do...

 

 

 

A question: I have the 12-40mm 2.8 Zuiko Pro lens. Would the WWL-1 (or WACP) give better results with this lens, compared to the standard zoom lenses, or does it perform worse?

 

This lens is not compatible with WWL-1, and has not been tested with WACP.

 

 

 

Do you have any experience with Sony FF/28-70 with WWL-1?

 

We are going to add the Sony FE 28‑70mm F3.5‑5.6 OSS Full‑frame E‑mount Zoom to WACP compatibility when that is next updated. The best port combo is 37303 + 21120 + 85201 for A7II / A7III / A9 Systems. Performance is about the same as WWL-1 with 28mm f/2 overall, but there is significant versatility added in being able to zoom through the lens' zoom range, and the combo is attracting some interest. There is also substantial interest in this from video shooters.

 

 

 

I understand that you are only testing lenses from 28mm because wider lenses will vignette with the WACP. However, as previously noted, Nikon has discontinued its 28-70mm lenses and replaced them with 24-70mm lenses which offer significant optical and other improvements. A more modern lens would be an advantage for use outside the housing. The fact that it would vignette at its widest setting would pose no obstacle to using it behind the WACP within the 28-70mm range (or even using it wider in situations where losing the corners would not be a problem). Could we have some tests with a lens that is actually currently available?

 

Obviously we want to test as many lenses as possible, but this is a not a trivial process.

 

 

 

Would also love to see a test of the Sony 28mm f2.8 on a Sony FF behind the WACP.

 

Do you mean 28mm f/2? If so, this hasn't ben a priority because it is very well supported by WWL-1, but I would expect that it is also quite good or better with WACP. This is my assumption, and has not been tested to my knowledge.

 

 

 

It would also be very helpful if you could specify the maximum lens diameter that can be effectively used within the WACP, perhaps using front filter thread size as a proxy, since this is more widely reported on lenses than the actual diameter. The excellent review by Alex and Jason failed to specify if they were using the Nikon 28-70mm f2.8, which has a 77mm filter thread, same as one of Nikon's current 24-70mm f2.8 lenses) or the Nikon 28-70mm f3.5-4.5, which has a filter thread of only 52mm.

 

Unfortunately we can't - there is no direct correlation between filter thread and compatibility. I will say that we have not tested any lens with a 77mm filter thread that works. We do have success with one lens that has a 72mm filter thread on DX, but this could be coincidence as much as anything else.

 

 

 

I have a Canon kit lens 24-105 f4 that I used once underwater and never again - is that likely to be too big for the WACP at 664g? Would the Canon 24-70 be a better choice?

 

None of the various 24-105 version, and none of the 24-70 f/2.8 iterations are compatible on full frame Canon.

 

 

 

Has any one tried the WACP with a Red Weapon and a 17-55mm or any other DX Kit lenses. Very interested in this for video work in the 6K-8K range i.e. 1,3x - 1,6x crop.

 

17-55 has been tested on APS-C and will not be recommended.

 

On an 8K Helium or 6K Dragon sensor 28-80 has proven to be wide enough to create interest, and on smaller sensors the Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Lens is proving to be a good option. Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 is also interesting, but the available zoom range will depend upon the format.

 

The primes are also worth looking at here... Which one depends on the coverage angle desired, but 28mm f/2.8 with IS and STM from Canon outstanding.

 

 

 

I'm also with you since I'm also a user of RED 6K. Much more info is needed with other lens combinations.

In video, we need all the light that we can and there are many times where we need to shoot wide open (depending on the lens that could be f4, f2.8 or even wider).

So far the recommendation emphasis had been in a slow 3.5 - 4.5 lens, which is of limited use for video work in less then ideal light conditions (if we have ideal light conditions, we could use smaller apertures, so no real need for the WACP). In my point of view, it's biggest usefulness is where the dome ports start to fail, at wider apertures, let's say from f5.6 and wider f-stops. So we really need to know how it performs in the f2.8 range and even f1.8 or f1.4.

I don't anticipate that we'll publish direct A-B comparisons here, there are just too many to document. We know it is better than options equivalent in coverage angle. Everyone I know that has used the lens agrees that it is better. The Mustard article clearly illustrates the advantages compared to Nikon 16-35 f/4, and you'll see more and more of those style comparisons the lens is used in the field.

I don't disagree that those comparisons have value, but realistically I don't expect that we'll wade into that. I've used the lens enough to draw my own conclusions, though. At any given field of view WACP (with a compatible lens) will be sharper in the corners than any lens behind a dome resulting in the same FOV at the same aperture. I don't see the value in trying to determine how much better (and whether that performance is usable) from photos on the internet, I'd buy / rent / borrow a lens and test for myself.

 

 

 

Are there any updates with regard to new lenses (i.e. DX or EFs lenses) or test charts that have been shot with the WACP

 

The next time a chart is published it will include some 35mm primes for full frame (resulting in approximately 110 deg diagonal fov), Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 and Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM as APS-C zooms, and the Sony FE 28‑70mm F3.5‑5.6 OSS Full‑frame E‑mount Zoom. There may be more, but that is what I remember off the top of my head.

 

 

 

Has anyone tried the WWL-1 with a DX camera or do you need to step up to the WACP?

 

There has never been an Canon APS-C or Nikon DX format recommendation made for WWL-1. I got the following feedback via facebook message today from someone using WACP with 7D Mark II and the 18-55 STM lens:

 

-I was flipping out under water

-The stm lens is super fast

-Super flexible

-Never had a better wide angle optic in front of my housing

[Architeuthis 156]

@Ryan: "At any given field of view WACP (with a compatible lens) will be sharper in the corners than any lens behind a dome resulting in the same FOV at the same aperture."

 

Is this true for rectilinear WA lenses only - or is this also the case for fisheye lenses?

 

 

Wolfgang

[Alex_Mustard 0]

There are more example shots from WACP on my website now - to show how it can be used. I have over 100 up there now, they are sorted chronologically, so newest are first:

 

http://www.amustard.com/library/page/search/%2228.0%22/

 

If the link does not work - search for: 28.0

which brings up pictures taken with 28mm lenses (or 28-70mm) which is covers my use of the WACP.

 

Currently away shooting in the Indian Ocean - and expected to use the lens a lot (although it will be a while before I process, keyword and caption the best shots from this trip to add to my website).

 

Alex

[Ryan 50]

@Ryan: "At any given field of view WACP (with a compatible lens) will be sharper in the corners than any lens behind a dome resulting in the same FOV at the same aperture."

 

Is this true for rectilinear WA lenses only - or is this also the case for fisheye lenses?

 

 

Wolfgang

 

Hi Wolfgang - that is an interesting point of clarification, and something worth testing. Thinking from the full frame perspective I didn't see a direct FOV equivalency, but on DX a 15mm or so fisheye is roughly equivalent to the 18-19mm lenses with WACP.

 

I'll see if we can test that in the lab.

[MJvC 9]

Hi Ryan

Thanks for the replies.

I saw somewhere someone using the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens on C200 with a WACP. Would this give more versatility (in terms of angle of cover) using a S35mm (DX) type sensor or would you still recommend the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM for S35 format.

Also is the front element of the WACP replaceable by a Nauticam service center like Reef (or would it require sending back to Nauticam HQ if it got scratched) and what would the cost be to replace that element.

[jordi 3]

Hi Alex,

 

I've been checking the images you linked, which are very nice as always, and I've seen than in most of them you are using high F/stops. The image quality is very good even in the corners but I am wondering what happens when you use open f/stops.

I've been checking some images by Todd Winner (at Nauticam's website), and even at low res you can see that at F5,6 the corners are not good. If this is the case I think is a very expensive investment if you must use a very old lens behind, which has slow autofocus and you are bound to use closed f/stops. So the only real avantage would be a bigger zoom range than with any other lens... Am I right?

 

 

There are more example shots from WACP on my website now - to show how it can be used. I have over 100 up there now, they are sorted chronologically, so newest are first:

 

http://www.amustard.com/library/page/search/%2228.0%22/

 

If the link does not work - search for: 28.0

which brings up pictures taken with 28mm lenses (or 28-70mm) which is covers my use of the WACP.

 

Currently away shooting in the Indian Ocean - and expected to use the lens a lot (although it will be a while before I process, keyword and caption the best shots from this trip to add to my website).

 

Alex

[twinner 5]

Hey Jordi,

 

f/5.6 is not going to be as sharp as f/11 or any high f stop but it is sharper than a dome at the same f stop and same FOV. That image in the cave is a bad example as I shot it with a slow shutter speed and probably introduced some camera movement. Overall I find it to be much sharper in the corners than a dome and the zoom range is pretty incredible.

 

Todd

Edited March 9, 2018 by twinner

[Walt Stearns 53]

Since I am also coming from the DX (Nikon D500) shooting camp, I am curious if the WCAP will work with the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED Lens. The lens features a comparable 35mm focal length equivalent of a 27 - 52.5 mm on DX format camera.

 

Physical dimensions of the lens run approx. 3.27” in diameter x 3.74" long (83 x 95 mm), which do not change when the zoom is racked out to 35mm like it does with the Nikon’s 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G. The lens takes a 77mm filter, but I don’t quite understand what the issue is there where Ryan Canon mentioned it his post.

 

Walt

[Alex_Mustard 0]

Hi Alex,

 

I've been checking the images you linked, which are very nice as always, and I've seen than in most of them you are using high F/stops. The image quality is very good even in the corners but I am wondering what happens when you use open f/stops.

I've been checking some images by Todd Winner (at Nauticam's website), and even at low res you can see that at F5,6 the corners are not good. If this is the case I think is a very expensive investment if you must use a very old lens behind, which has slow autofocus and you are bound to use closed f/stops. So the only real avantage would be a bigger zoom range than with any other lens... Am I right?

 

 

 

Hi Jordi,

 

The main reason for the higher apertures in many of my shots is photographic.

I guess it comes down to the fact I am using the lens now, not testing it, so I am selecting apertures based on what is appropriate, rather than what would test the ability of the lens. Most of the images I have shot recently are in bright, shallow conditions and I am close to the subjects (so I have lots of flash). The small size of the WACP is advantageous in such situations compared with a big dome. Also when I am close focusing on a subject (such as the turtles) I needed to use a small aperture (not for corner sharpness, but for adequate depth of field). This is something that you need to consider with both the WACP and the RS-13mm.

 

Also, after last summer I returned the WACP to Nauticam and I am waiting for my own one to be ready (I just heard that it is). Since I still had an pre-production prototype of the WACP at home (much smaller and not as good as the final WACP, but still better than a dome port) I used that lens in Mexico, Florida and have it with me on my current trip. If the official WACP is 2-3 stops ahead of a dome, the prototype is about 1.5 stops (both have the same field of view). So I would use my more recent images as a guide to the types of shots that the WACP, rather than a measure of quality - as the production WACP is better.

 

Finally, although the 28-70mm f/3.5-f/4.5 is an old lens - it is a sharp one. Also it is actually has a faster aperture than the 16-35mm, which is f/4 (although it isn't AF-S). For wide angle subjects I don't find the AF a limitation.

 

Alex

[jordi 3]

Thanks a lot Todd and Alex for your answer!

I'd really appreciate if you can post any picture at F5,6 or lower when you have the final WACP Unit.

Thanks a lot for your help

 

Jordi

[MJvC 9]

Have Nauticam come out with a Newer Compatibility Chart with Zoom and Focus Gear part numbers for Nauticam's Cinema Housings If so please can you put up a link.

I am also looking for any Pool Chart Tests for this optic.

Thanks

[miguelpereira 0]

@AlexMustard: thanks for the wonderful detailed WACP review. I have a doubt that I was hoping you could help. I know it's an apple to oranges comparison but what's the resolution difference between a fisheye lens (the Nikon 8-15 @15mm for example) in a 230mm dome and the WACP?

[Alex_Mustard 0]

I don’t know. I guess it might be interesting to have the numbers of all lenses - fisheye to macro to know what we are used to having underwater. But generating these numbers takes a lot of work and I am not sure that it will happen. Alex