Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Thank you! Indeed, I have to think about portability. mt-m, since you have used both the 230 and the 180, do you see a substantial difference to justify the bloated size and price tag? Here are some samples with the 100mm Zen. More forthcoming. post-46973-0-50017800-1563537400_thumb.jpgpost-46973-0-77346400-1563537412_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make me feel like getting this canon glass and throw the 16-35 away!! Haaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

About the difference between 230mm and 180mm - at least in Nauticam's case, the radius of the actual glass sphere is very close, I think it's 120mm for 230mm dome and 110mm for the 180mm dome. So the 180 is almost like a smaller cut of the the same sphere. As such, it's really about how wide the lens is and how the dome is positioned. I haven't noticed much if any difference as far as quality is concerned, but I only use 16-35 f4 and 24-70 f4, plus I mostly shoot my kids and sharks/turtles, where the corners are usually just water, so corner sharpness is irrelevant.

 

This is Sony 24-70 f4 behind the Nauticam 180mm glass dome:

post-53730-0-38940100-1563546633_thumb.jpg

 

 

Edited by mt-m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 5 cent

Benigno as I told you on the boat you did very well considering this was the first trip to the red sea and you had a lot new equipment

Clearly corner sharpness is not the issue for split but merely the size of the dome

I have shot the 230 and is huge with a tokina 10-17 with a 7200 years ago

Since then

1. I don’t shoot splits with fisheye as I dont like the distortion

2. I have used a 6” and 7” port with a rectilinear lens with mft you have seen my splits on facebook and on the boat

 

Now as you have a full frame split with rectilinear will require huge domes buy only for corner sharpness if you are ok with the zoom fisheye in my opinion zen 170 is fine ok on the boat we had peter with that monstrousity and alex with the custom domes but that’s a whole different game

Considering the quality you get with the 100mm and that 170 is already a good size I would ignore the 230 unless you plan to shoot rectilinear splits

 

Take care

Massimo

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please Read because some of the information above is a bit incorrect. First the Sony A7 line of housings has an N-100 100mm port mount not N-85 so any comparisons are not valid. Using the Nauticam N100 to N120 35.5mm port adapter allows you to use N-120 ports and in the case of the Canon 8-15mm Fisheye the metabones adapter extends to the edge of the port adapter and then you use the Nauticam Canon port charts to find the extension for the 8-15 zoom. The proper extension for the 8-15 zoom is the N-120 30mm for the 18811 140mm fisheye port with removable shade and 30mm for the Nauticam fisheye port II and 30mm for the ZEN 230mm. Both have dome shades that can be removed for use at the extreme 8mm end of the lens. Be aware a 140mm port is made that does not have the removable shade. Zen also makes a 100mm with and without removable shade. The ZEN DP-100-N120-CR (For removable) would be the proper dome.

 

 

The Zen 170mm and Nauticam 180mm ports ARE NOT fisheye ports and DO NOT have removable dome shades, so the 8mm end of the lens would be useless unless you crop out a good deal of the frame.

 

I have used all three port sizes extensively and as you would expect the larger the port the better the image quality in the corners with apples to apples settings.

 

I would agree that the 230mm dome is a bitch to travel with but I have managed to keep my carry-on roller bag to under 12kg by putting the housing without grips, lenses and bodies into my "computer" second carry-on bag. The larger upside to the Nauticam/Zen 230mm (I own the ZEN) beyond the obivious over/under upside is that the230mm port can be used with the Sony 12-24 zoom, 16-35 F/2.8 & F/4, Zeiss 18mm and more by using 20mm, 30mm and 40mm extensions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please Read because some of the information above is a bit incorrect. First the Sony A7 line of housings has an N-100 100mm port mount not N-85 so any comparisons are not valid. Using the Nauticam N100 to N120 35.5mm port adapter allows you to use N-120 ports and in the case of the Canon 8-15mm Fisheye the metabones adapter extends to the edge of the port adapter and then you use the Nauticam Canon port charts to find the extension for the 8-15 zoom. The proper extension for the 8-15 zoom is the N-120 30mm for the 18811 140mm fisheye port with removable shade and 30mm for the Nauticam fisheye port II and 30mm for the ZEN 230mm. Both have dome shades that can be removed for use at the extreme 8mm end of the lens. Be aware a 140mm port is made that does not have the removable shade. Zen also makes a 100mm with and without removable shade. The ZEN DP-100-N120-CR (For removable) would be the proper dome.

 

 

The Zen 170mm and Nauticam 180mm ports ARE NOT fisheye ports and DO NOT have removable dome shades, so the 8mm end of the lens would be useless unless you crop out a good deal of the frame.

 

I have used all three port sizes extensively and as you would expect the larger the port the better the image quality in the corners with apples to apples settings.

 

I would agree that the 230mm dome is a bitch to travel with but I have managed to keep my carry-on roller bag to under 12kg by putting the housing without grips, lenses and bodies into my "computer" second carry-on bag. The larger upside to the Nauticam/Zen 230mm (I own the ZEN) beyond the obivious over/under upside is that the230mm port can be used with the Sony 12-24 zoom, 16-35 F/2.8 & F/4, Zeiss 18mm and more by using 20mm, 30mm and 40mm extensions.

Phil is the expert on Sony if 170 doesn’t work 140mm is borderline small for splits especially landscape or very still water

Portrait would work

But I would not get a 230 port just for splits you need another reason

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

My mistake on current ZEN 170mm domes the dome shade blades are removable. So if you already own that port and can remove the shade blades you would have an advantage for splits. Would not be my choice for any other full frame lens other than fisheye.

Edited by Phil Rudin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mistake on current ZEN 170mm domes the dome shade blades are removable. So if you already own that port and can remove the shade blades you would have an advantage for splits. Would not be my choice for any other full frame lens other than fisheye.

Lol sometimes Phil is wrong. 170mm is ok for fisheye splits

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all, as usual, this conversation is very informative and helpful. For the most part, I-m inclined to go with the 170 after the points made above, but the possibility of adding a wide rectilinear option in the future with the 230 sure has some appeal. But can somebody point me in the right direction about the removable shades? The folks at Bluewater tell me that neither the 170 nor the 230 has removable shades, and looking in the Zen website, they don't say one way or the other. I don't see in the pictures the external O-ring that allows for shade removal on the 100mm. Is there a newer model of these and if so, does anybody have a link? Thank you again for everybody's help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all for the great thread! I'm trying to do some research myself today and there have been some very useful posts here.

I'm currently using the Zen 100 mm port (removable shade) on the 35.5 mm N100-N120 adapter for a Canon 8-15 mm lens (Metabones V, Sony A7rIII, NA-A7RIII housing). I think I'll need to replace the port – the glass is becoming quite opaque (I'm not great at cleaning it, my bad). 

Anyway, I see on Nauticam's port charts that they're not recommending my current setup, but rather pointing to the 140 mm port as optimal. 

Two things: 

1) Is it okay to use the 140 mm port with the non-removable shade? I've never used the full-circular effect, and find the removable shade on the Zen to be a pain (in fact I've completely taped it in place).

2) With the 35.5 mm adapter I'm already using, do I still need an additional 30 mm extension ring? I'm presuming from Phil's post above that I do, but I live in hope ;)

I understand that larger domes (i.e. new 140 mm > current 100 mm) have better corner sharpness at the same settings; is there any difference otherwise?

Thanks!

Simon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SimonPierce said:

Thanks all for the great thread! I'm trying to do some research myself today and there have been some very useful posts here.

I'm currently using the Zen 100 mm port (removable shade) on the 35.5 mm N100-N120 adapter for a Canon 8-15 mm lens (Metabones V, Sony A7rIII, NA-A7RIII housing). I think I'll need to replace the port – the glass is becoming quite opaque (I'm not great at cleaning it, my bad). 

Anyway, I see on Nauticam's port charts that they're not recommending my current setup, but rather pointing to the 140 mm port as optimal. 

Two things: 

1) Is it okay to use the 140 mm port with the non-removable shade? I've never used the full-circular effect, and find the removable shade on the Zen to be a pain (in fact I've completely taped it in place).

2) With the 35.5 mm adapter I'm already using, do I still need an additional 30 mm extension ring? I'm presuming from Phil's post above that I do, but I live in hope ;)

I understand that larger domes (i.e. new 140 mm > current 100 mm) have better corner sharpness at the same settings; is there any difference otherwise?

Thanks!

Simon.

1. Yes if you are not bothered about circular fisheye images

2. You need a further extension. According to my measurements 25 mm not 30 mm as on the port chart to place the dome in the optimal position. Without extension you will increase the barrel distortion and reduce the field of view

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very much! Really appreciate the response and clarification.

Just to follow-up – I was diving into port charts a bit more and see that the Zen 170 mm is also an option for the Canon 8-15 mm, although there doesn't seem to be much information on it here in the forum.

Does anyone have any experience with this port? I'm just trying to get my head around the options – I love the 100 mm Zen for travel friendliness, as well as being easy to snorkel with (I'm a whale shark researcher, so I spend a lot of time chasing them around), but it sounds like the 140 mm Nauticam or (potentially) the 170 mm Zen might be preferable quality-wise. Other than improved corners, do the larger ports have other benefits too?

A couple of considerations:

– I'd quite like the option of doing split-levels occasionally too, although perhaps I should just get a larger dome for those shots. Sounds like the 140 mm is still a little small for that, but 170 mm might be workable.

– I like to stay at f/8 when I'm shooting action whenever possible, as the A7rIII loses phase-detect AF in burst mode above that (it locks focus on the first frame). I haven't been unhappy with the Zen 100 mm, even with that restriction.

Best,

   Simon.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks very much! Really appreciate the response and clarification.
Just to follow-up – I was diving into port charts a bit more and see that the Zen 170 mm is also an option for the Canon 8-15 mm, although there doesn't seem to be much information on it here in the forum.
Does anyone have any experience with this port? I'm just trying to get my head around the options – I love the 100 mm Zen for travel friendliness, as well as being easy to snorkel with (I'm a whale shark researcher, so I spend a lot of time chasing them around), but it sounds like the 140 mm Nauticam or (potentially) the 170 mm Zen might be preferable quality-wise. Other than improved corners, do the larger ports have other benefits too?
A couple of considerations:
– I'd quite like the option of doing split-levels occasionally too, although perhaps I should just get a larger dome for those shots. Sounds like the 140 mm is still a little small for that, but 170 mm might be workable.
– I like to stay at f/8 when I'm shooting action whenever possible, as the A7rIII loses phase-detect AF in burst mode above that (it locks focus on the first frame). I haven't been unhappy with the Zen 100 mm, even with that restriction.
Best,
   Simon.
 
 

For the canon 8-15mm you really want a circular dome. The zen 170 is a cut kf a 11 cm radius sphere and to avoid vignetting you will need to push the lens right in and you are back at more distortion and loss of field of view
The nauticam 230 glass dome would be a larger option however it is also a cut of a 12 cm radius and the 1 cm missing means you need to push the lens in a little but nowhere near the zen
I have the 140mm dome and is a complete sphere clearly on MFT the smaller radius is enough but on full frame may be not
Either way there are no other complete domes on the nauticam chart than the 140mm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 140mm dome works perfectly with the 8-15 on the a7rii, Simon. I used that combo for a couple of years. Downside is splits are difficult, but for travel and currents,  it's a big asset to have the smaller port.

The 170mm dome is made for rectilinear lenses, just like the Nauticam 180mm. It's not the ideal option for a fisheye. 

I'd go with the 140mm + a seperate dome port dedicated for splits. The nauticam 8.5" acrylic dome works fine for that purpose and it's 1/4 the price of the 230mm glass dome :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add on Andrei point for splits it is true glass sheds water better but acrylic can be made work and actually you want your system to float as much as possible and a heavy dome is bad

I would also recommend 140+acrylic dome for splits the acrylic also gives you the rectilinear lens option with 16-35 mm

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again – definitely going with these options. Nice to be optimised for the task at hand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loving this thread as i'm considering getting a housing for my A7R IV; all set for the macro front, just figuring out WA options ;-)

Couple questions:

1) How well does the Zen 100m work with the fisheye setup ? (I think Simon has some experience - do you have pics to share?) Also did you need to use extra extension on top of the N100->N120 35.5mm adapter?

2) Would the same setup (N100->N120 adapter + Zen 100mm) work for 28mm f/2 + Fisheye Converter? I'm considering that as it's lighter than the canon + metabones combow.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...