Macro - zoom with diopter, or dedicated macro lens?

[Barmaglot 250]

I'm currently using a Sony A6300 with the 16-50mm zoom in a SeaFrogs housing (the last year's model with the fixed port), and while it works great within its performance envelope, the macro capability is... lacking, as the lens can't focus any closer than about 25cm, so I'm considering options:

 

1. 30mm macro - would fit my current housing, and can focus down to 10cm from the sensor plane, so basically almost to the port glass, but I'm afraid that getting this close to small critters would be quite difficult, plus I'd lose the wide-angle capability.
2. Wet diopter - Nauticam CMC-1 is quoted as having 46mm minimum working distance when in front of Sony 16-50mm, with the frame width being 26mm, but what is its maximum working distance? I read somewhere that for diopters, you take 1 meter and divide by diopter strength, so for a +15 diopter like CMC-1, it'd be 66mm, giving me a 2cm window into which the camera can focus - is that correct? What are the corresponding numbers for CMC-2?
3. 90mm macro - it's the most powerful option, to be sure, but it's expensive ($1200 new, and it's hard to find used lenses around here - small country, small market - plus I'd need a new housing and port, although I'm probably getting that new housing anyway for the dry dome port and vacuum system capability), and as I understand it, quite difficult to use, as it focuses much slower than the little kit zoom while draining a lot of battery power - moving all that heavy glass back and forth isn't easy.
4. 50mm macro - might be easier to use than 90mm, but I've seen some quite unflattering reviews, and I'm not sure how the part where it extends to focus will play with a port - what are the chances that, while retracted, it will start trying to focus on the port glass instead of the subject?

 

The flexibility afforded by wet lenses is really attractive - I have been on a dive where we saw a seahorse, followed by a whale shark - but I've never used a diopter, so I don't really know which way to go...

[JustinBeevor 8]

I can recommend the 90 - I have two albums on flickr where I used it, the first on a 6300 (https://flic.kr/s/aHskM6doVq) and the second on a 6500 (https://flic.kr/s/aHskWp3PkA) - see what you think. Sure, it's expensive, there's no way around that, but you've got a great little camera, and you shouldn't be put off by the additional investment. As to batteries, I never had a problem with the 6300 - I found that a single one would easily last two dives, so I just changed for a spare (I travel with two) at lunchtime when I was back on dry land.

 

I've also tried the Touit 50mm, but didn't get on with it at all - it just kept hunting, hunting, hunting and I missed so many shots of mobile subjects because of it. I don't understand why - I raised an issue with the reputable shop that sold it to me, but it foxed them too. That's why I chopped it in for the 90mm. There's another flickr album with a few successful shots at https://flic.kr/s/aHsjYjPX5J. Also, it's not a cheap lens either itself (although there are more used ones than the 90mm) - so you may as well pay a little extra for the 90. (You mention focus extension, but the Touit is fixed length, so maybe you mean the newer FE 50M, which I haven't touched.) The other benefit of the 90 is that it takes the SMC, which gives you access to the magical world of BDSM (big dollops of super-macro).

 

IMHO the 16-50 is a nasty little thing ergonomically, which I ditched as soon as I bought my 6300, and kept my old 18-55 ... but it's no use underwater as it's an extender. But actually, now that the WWL and CMC are available, it could be a better travel option for flexibility, if that's your priority.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Justin

[pedrosana 0]

If you want to keep flexibility (seahorse + wale shark you should consider cmc1 + flip holder.

You can try that for a while and then decide if you want to pursue with macro.

For macro and super macro you can go for 90mm + cmc1 or smc1? ( not sure if both work with 90mm)

I would not consider a macro lens alone while you loose wide angle but you don't get super macro.

Edited June 6, 2018 by pedrosana

[Barmaglot 250]

I can recommend the 90 - I have two albums on flickr where I used it, the first on a 6300 (https://flic.kr/s/aHskM6doVq) and the second on a 6500 (https://flic.kr/s/aHskWp3PkA) - see what you think. Sure, it's expensive, there's no way around that, but you've got a great little camera, and you shouldn't be put off by the additional investment. As to batteries, I never had a problem with the 6300 - I found that a single one would easily last two dives, so I just changed for a spare (I travel with two) at lunchtime when I was back on dry land.

 

 

Thanks, some very nice examples there... what was your working distance like, taking portraits of larger fish like lionfish with the 90mm?

 

 

I've also tried the Touit 50mm, but didn't get on with it at all - it just kept hunting, hunting, hunting and I missed so many shots of mobile subjects because of it. I don't understand why - I raised an issue with the reputable shop that sold it to me, but it foxed them too. That's why I chopped it in for the 90mm. There's another flickr album with a few successful shots at https://flic.kr/s/aHsjYjPX5J. Also, it's not a cheap lens either itself (although there are more used ones than the 90mm) - so you may as well pay a little extra for the 90. (You mention focus extension, but the Touit is fixed length, so maybe you mean the newer FE 50M, which I haven't touched.) The other benefit of the 90 is that it takes the SMC, which gives you access to the magical world of BDSM (big dollops of super-macro).

 

Yeah, I meant the Sony 50mm FE, not the Zeiss... haven't even considered the latter.

 

 

IMHO the 16-50 is a nasty little thing ergonomically, which I ditched as soon as I bought my 6300, and kept my old 18-55 ... but it's no use underwater as it's an extender. But actually, now that the WWL and CMC are available, it could be a better travel option for flexibility, if that's your priority.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Justin

 

16-50mm only extends on power-up; it doesn't actually extend or retract more than a millimeter or so when zooming and focusing, so it works just fine in a port.

 

I guess I'll go the 90mm way, eventually - next time I'm over in US, I'll get a used one, and a port for it from Meikon. In the meanwhile, I already have a 10-18mm, so I ordered the Meikon housing with the dry dome port for it yesterday, taking advantage of their Father's Day sale. My next destination is Red Sea (Ras Mohammed area), which, as I understand, is more of a wide-angle place rather than macro anyway.

[JustinBeevor 8]

Working distance for portraits were quite comfortable - at a rough guess, around one to two metres.

 

Re-reading my last para about the zooms, I wasn't very clear, so here goes. For dry land, I prefer the 18-55 over the 16-50, as I found the latter too small and fiddly. Underwater, the 18-55 is no good as it extends when zooming, so it won't go in a port; so now that the WWL and CMC are available, I might look again at the 16-50 as a practical solution for travelling.