Jump to content
TmxDiver

Sony 10-18 vs. Tokina 10-17 FE for a Sony a6400

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I'm working on putting together a Sony a6400 system with a Nauticam housing. I currently have the WWL-C and the kit SEL1650-PZ lens.

I'm thinking about getting a second setup for wide angle and I'm trying to figure out if I should get the dome (Nauticam or Zen) for the Sony 10-18 (I already own the lens) or if I should get the Tokina Fisheye with the associated ports and dome and lens adapter.

I shoot a lot of wrecks and other structures underwater to it somewhat makes sense to go with the rectilinear Sony 10-18 but the WWL-C is "kinda" rectilinear already. Also, I'm a technical diver so I need a dome rated to 100m so that rules out the Nauticam 18809 glass dome (60m rated depth) and I'd probably go with the Nauticam 36129 acrylic dome (100m rated depth).

On the other hand, since I already have the WWL-C, it might make sense to add a fisheye lens configuration. Before Covid (and presumably after), I do a lot of travel to really remote places (Bikini, Chuuk, etc) and so with this setup, travel would be easier since I wouldn't have to lug around a big dome and could just use the minidome.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

- brett

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been using the 10-18 with a 6600. I was so close to buying the Tokina, but heard it has issues with focusing especially in low light. I can say that the 10-18 has ZERO issues focusing SUPER FAST. Here are some example shots with the 10-18. First month I was using it, I didn't have the zoom ring. That's why most of the shots are all at 14mm.

50177341818_a66677c12c.jpg

Convict Tangs by Chad Nuttall, on Flickr

50149836508_01b5795928.jpg

Octopus 6 by Chad Nuttall, on Flickr

50149842933_c6657d66de.jpg

Turtle 4 by Chad Nuttall, on Flickr

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this is at Wake Atoll, pretty remote like you are saying. I just got a Nanuk 955 case (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B088MNJX2P/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o09_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1) and it fits EVERYTHING, camera, housing, macro port, 8" dome port in its protective case, all accessories. I check it and it has made it to and from the Island without issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can get the Zen N120 170mm dome port rated at 90m.  The Nauticam acrylic port is very floaty and much larger than you would think, it looks heaps bigger than my Zen 170mm dome when seen side by side.

The Zen port charts are no longer at the address I used to find them, but I found a copy on the web archive here, you have two options available:

https://web.archive.org/web/20171012162605/https://www.jaredparsons.com/portchart/zen-only/by-combination-group/nauticam-n85/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Spizeck said:

I have been using the 10-18 with a 6600. I was so close to buying the Tokina, but heard it has issues with focusing especially in low light. I can say that the 10-18 has ZERO issues focusing SUPER FAST. Here are some example shots with the 10-18. First month I was using it, I didn't have the zoom ring. That's why most of the shots are all at 14mm.

 

Nice pictures!

Which dome do you use with the 10-18?

Right now, my main subject is wrecks and they don't move so fast so I'm not too worried about focus speed (at least for now). ;)

Thanks,

Brett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Spizeck said:

All of this is at Wake Atoll, pretty remote like you are saying. I just got a Nanuk 955 case (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B088MNJX2P/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o09_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1) and it fits EVERYTHING, camera, housing, macro port, 8" dome port in its protective case, all accessories. I check it and it has made it to and from the Island without issue.

Yeah, I'm trying to avoid another checked piece of luggage.

Because I'm on a rebreather, I have a Pelican case with the rebreather (rEvo) and then a large duffel bag with all my other gear for technical diving (multiple regs, reels, spools, lights, etc) along with some sturdier camera gear (housing, video lights, arms, etc) and a bit of clothing.

All LiOn batteries, computers & camera go into a backpack for carry-on.

And that doesn't include a drysuit for cold destinations.... 

- brett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

You can get the Zen N120 170mm dome port rated at 90m.  The Nauticam acrylic port is very floaty and much larger than you would think, it looks heaps bigger than my Zen 170mm dome when seen side by side.

The Zen port charts are no longer at the address I used to find them, but I found a copy on the web archive here, you have two options available:

https://web.archive.org/web/20171012162605/https://www.jaredparsons.com/portchart/zen-only/by-combination-group/nauticam-n85/

 

Thanks, Chris.

Yes, I've been thinking about that option as well and it seems like a good one. 

If I go that route, I need to decide if I should get the N120 mount version that would allow me to migrate into full frame camera at some point in the future.

BTW - Zen now has support page which has links to port charts for different mounts:

https://www.zenunderwater.com/pages/support

Any thoughts on image quality of the WWL-C/16-50 combo vs. 10-18 behind a glass dome?

- brett

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm using the Nauticam glass 180mm port. 80 to 120 adapter, 10mm extender and the dome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TmxDiver said:

Any thoughts on image quality of the WWL-C/16-50 combo vs. 10-18 behind a glass dome?

- brett

 

Well, the 10-18 is 16mm full frame equivalent and you are on APS-C so the 180/170mm dome is probably marginal at least around 16-18mm range for the best corner quality.  If you look at the Canon port charts they recommend the 230mm dome for the Canon EF-S 10-18mm as most optimal which is the same setup you are proposing effectively.  I'm not saying it won't work or is terrible - just not as good as it could be.  So on that basis the WWL-C is probably better optically but it has some barrel distortion - it's not rectilinear which might be an issue for wrecks, the WWL-C is also substantially wider about 125° or 11mm equivalent compared to 16mm/107°.   All a trade off. 

BTW the WWL-C is a substantial chunk of glass weighing about 1.0kg in air and 156mm in diameter It's on a bayonet mount but they don't talk about a flip adapter for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

Well, the 10-18 is 16mm full frame equivalent and you are on APS-C so the 180/170mm dome is probably marginal at least around 16-18mm range for the best corner quality.  If you look at the Canon port charts they recommend the 230mm dome for the Canon EF-S 10-18mm as most optimal which is the same setup you are proposing effectively.  I'm not saying it won't work or is terrible - just not as good as it could be.  So on that basis the WWL-C is probably better optically but it has some barrel distortion - it's not rectilinear which might be an issue for wrecks, the WWL-C is also substantially wider about 125° or 11mm equivalent compared to 16mm/107°.   All a trade off. 

BTW the WWL-C is a substantial chunk of glass weighing about 1.0kg in air and 156mm in diameter It's on a bayonet mount but they don't talk about a flip adapter for it.

Can you expand on that please? Would the corner sharpness be better wider? How does the larger dome help that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is fundamental dome port optics -  the dome port has a curved virtual image at 3 dome radii from the dome for an object at infinity.  This is close to minimum focus distance and because it is curved you need to stop down to bring the corners into focus.  The wider the lens the more problem it has bringing the corners into focus.  Corner sharpness improves as you zoom in.  A larger dome has a virtual image that is further away and flatter so easier to get the corners in focus.  It's the biggest deal with full frame but will also impact smaller formats to a lesser extent for example the 180mm dome is marginal for 14mm equivalent rectilinear lenses on m43 cameras 16mm lenses on full frame you need to be stopping down to f11-16 for good corners in a 230mm dome.  This post has more information: 

and this website explains dome port theory in more detail.  https://oceanity.com.au/blog/view/understanding-flat-port-and-dome-port-theory

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I'm using mine behind a Zen DP 170 N85 ii with my OMD EM10, I already had this port which I use with the 12-40mm Olympus and it seems to work ok, I did not want to splash out on the N120 system which needs an extension etc.

Corner sharpness is an issue at 8mm but as I do it fun I'm not too bothered really :D  Few pics from the usual dark and gloomy UK lakes

untitled-112020.jpg

untitled-932020.jpg

untitled-672020.jpg

untitled-222020.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2020 at 5:18 PM, ChrisRoss said:

BTW the WWL-C is a substantial chunk of glass weighing about 1.0kg in air and 156mm in diameter It's on a bayonet mount but they don't talk about a flip adapter for it.

I'm still pondering the 10-18 rectilinear vs Tokina Fisheye and was doing a little research around weights of various solutions (given your comment above and my experience using the WWL-C).

The WWL-C is for sure a heavy chunk of metal & glass and weighs 1.05kg. I don't personally find it too bulky or unwieldy while navigating underwater and it pairs nicely with the Nauticam a6400 housing. I have it mounted on the bayonet mount and it feels "solid."

Interestingly enough, the Zen DP-170-N85 II dome weights 1.03kg or essentially exactly the same as the WWL-C.

Given that the WWL-C has a built in buoyancy collar, the in-water weight is listed as 0.17kg. The Zen site doesn't provide an in-water weight but I'm guessing it is going to be similar due to the amount of air trapped in the dome.

The Nauticam site doesn't list the weight of the 7" acrylic dome, but as you said, it is "very floaty" so I'm not sure that is a good solution either.

I just thought folks might find the weight comparison interesting.

- brett

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I brought up the weight of the WWL-C in connection use on a flip adapter - it seems to be be big and heavy to use that way.  In theory you can take it off UW, but in practice what do you do with it?  It doesn't have anywhere to tie it off.  Balance may also be an issue with small housings.  As you point out it is more or less equivalent to a dome in size/weight and will be fine on most housings.  Just think of it as permanently attached apart from the need to burp it.

I have seen other reports of the tendency for the 7" dome to want to twist upwards due to the buoyancy even if the rig is overall neutral or negative.  I have the Zen 170mm dome on my Nauticam housing and it seems quite well balanced.  People have reported attaching lead weights to the sunshade to assist with the floaty 7" dome - it will help but not an elegant solution.  The Nauticam 7" dome is a 180 deg dome while the Zen 170mm and Nauticam 180mm  domes are smaller segments of a sphere.  this make them more compact, they are segments of a dome with a 110mm radius of curvature and this places some limits on how wide a view they can provide while still being close to being optimally positioned in the dome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...