Jump to content
adamhanlon

Wetpixel Live: Water Contact Optics Review

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, hyp said:

Aren't the WWL-1 and WWL-C much narrower than a full 180° fisheye and also much less fishy (although still more fishy than the WACP?). And obviously you get some zoom capabilities with the combination of the 28-60mm (or any other zoom in any other system).

130 degrees and they are equally distorted, the WACP is the same the less distortion only comes because the magnification is reduced all those lenses are not rectilinear

If you zoom a fisheye zoom it has less perceived distortion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hyp said:

 And obviously you get some zoom capabilities with the combination of the 28-60mm (or any other zoom in any other system).

That seems great, i didn't realize that the WWL-1 gave full zoom-through capability for the 28-60mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, singkwan said:

@Phil Rudin wow thanks for the insights! Yes, very interested in the WWL-1 with 28-60mm combo, as aside from the price of the WACP, 7KG top side weight is something I think I will struggle with quite a bit (have issues now already with a full Ikelite setup). Also having a fixed 28mm behind a WWL-1 means much less flexibility in shooting.

Have you tested the comparison of the WWL-1 with 28-60mm vs with the WACP? Is there a massive difference in image quality? Wondering now if it will somehow fit my Ikelite housing for the A7III. Hmm....

First I will be testing the Sony FE 28-60mm zoom with the Nauticam WACP, WWL-1 and CMC-1&2 in the future. At this time the N100/45 port with focus wheel (for WWL-1)  and the zoom gear are not available in my area.

Second WACP mounts direct to the housing without a port so use on Ikelite DL or older housings is unlikely. I would guess you would also need a custom flat port with 67mm threads to use the WWL-1. Ikelite has listed the Sony A7c as a housing they may support and if they do I would expect support for the 28-60 kit lens with 67mm thread. 

Regarding image quality WACP has been designed for full frame cameras with high numbers of MP's. So on my 62MP A7R IV I would expect a noticeable difference in image quality V. WWL-1 with the same lens. That said we have outstanding full frame cameras in the 20-26MP range like the Canon EOS R6, Nikon Z6 II and Sony A7 III and A7c. With these lower numbers of MP's I would expect the gap between WACP and WWL-1 to narrow a bit. Without addressing the weight and cost differences both lenses are going to exceed current rectilinear and dome port choices without question. 

I suggest that anyone that does not grasp how a kit lens can out preform a high quality zoom lens and port read Alex Mustard's excellent review in back issue #99 at UWPMAG.com. This is a free PDF download and includes graphs of lens performance tests by Nauticam.

I agree with Adams post that the WWL-1 has barrel distortion on full frame as does the WACP but I would hardly agree that it would be the same as using a fisheye lens on mirrorless full frame. I have been using the Canon 8-15mm fisheye for several years now on full frame with an adapter and to me I can see a clear difference. You can decide for yourself between the images below of the bow of C-53 in Cozumel Mexico. Both images are taken at about as close as you can to the same distance and angle. The first is on a Sony full frame with a Rokinon 12mm fisheye and the other is with the Sony 28mm F/2 and WWL-1.  

 

untitled-02261.jpg

untitled-00467.jpg

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps for clarity, this is the definition of a fisheye lens:

A fisheye lens is an ultra wide-angle lens that produces strong visual distortion intended to create a wide panoramic or hemispherical image.[4][5]:145 Fisheye lenses achieve extremely wide angles of view. Instead of producing images with straight lines of perspective (rectilinear images), fisheye lenses use a special mapping (for example: equisolid angle), which gives images a characteristic convex non-rectilinear appearance.

FOV is not a defining characteristic, particularly given that fisheye lenses can zoom....
WWL-1 (I have not shot WWL-C) produces an image with a stronger "convex non-linear appearance" than WACP-1.

In my discussions with the designers of the lenses, my understanding of the development of WACP was that the WWL was a spin-off when the team at Nauticam realized that producing a relatively rectilinear correction lens for use with full frame cameras needed much bigger and more expensive glass in order to make it work. Perhaps @Edward Lai would be happy to chime in here to discuss this too?

I think it would be wrong to suggest that the quality and appearance of an image would be the same with WWL and WACP. It may have marketing advantages to suggest this however!


I should stress that they are (in my experience) both excellent lenses, but are intended for different things.


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, singkwan said:

@Phil Rudin wow thanks for the insights! Yes, very interested in the WWL-1 with 28-60mm combo, as aside from the price of the WACP, 7KG top side weight is something I think I will struggle with quite a bit (have issues now already with a full Ikelite setup). Also having a fixed 28mm behind a WWL-1 means much less flexibility in shooting.

Have you tested the comparison of the WWL-1 with 28-60mm vs with the WACP? Is there a massive difference in image quality? Wondering now if it will somehow fit my Ikelite housing for the A7III. Hmm....

First I will be testing the Sony FE 28-60mm zoom with the Nauticam WACP, WWL-1 and CMC-1&2 in the future. At this time the N100/45 port with focus wheel (for WWL-1)  and the zoom gear are not available in my area.

Second WACP mounts direct to the housing without a port so use on Ikelite DL or older housings is unlikely. I would guess you would also need a custom flat port with 67mm threads to use the WWL-1. Ikelite has listed the Sony A7c as a housing they may support and if they do I would expect support for the 28-60 kit lens with 67mm thread. 

Regarding image quality WACP has been designed for full frame cameras with high numbers of MP's. So on my 62MP A7R IV I would expect a noticeable difference in image quality V. WWL-1 with the same lens. That said we have outstanding full frame cameras in the 20-26MP range like the Canon EOS R6, Nikon Z6 II and Sony A7 III and A7c. With these lower numbers of MP's I would expect the gap between WACP and WWL-1 to narrow a bit. Without addressing the weight and cost differences both lenses are going to exceed current rectilinear and dome port choices without question. 

I suggest that anyone that does not grasp how a kit lens can out preform a high quality zoom lens and port read Alex Mustard's excellent review in back issue #99 at UWPMAG.com. This is a free PDF download and includes graphs of lens performance tests by Nauticam.

I agree with Adams post that the WWL-1 has barrel distortion on full frame as does the WACP but I would hardly agree that it would be the same as using a fisheye lens on mirrorless full frame. I have been using the Canon 8-15mm fisheye for several years now on full frame with an adapter and to me I can see a clear difference. You can decide for yourself between the images below of the bow of C-53 in Cozumel Mexico. Both images are taken at about as close as you can to the same distance and angle. The first is on a Sony full frame with a Rokinon 12mm fisheye and the other is with the Sony 28mm F/2 and WWL-1.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, singkwan said:

@Phil Rudin wow thanks for the insights! Yes, very interested in the WWL-1 with 28-60mm combo, as aside from the price of the WACP, 7KG top side weight is something I think I will struggle with quite a bit (have issues now already with a full Ikelite setup). Also having a fixed 28mm behind a WWL-1 means much less flexibility in shooting.

Have you tested the comparison of the WWL-1 with 28-60mm vs with the WACP? Is there a massive difference in image quality? Wondering now if it will somehow fit my Ikelite housing for the A7III. Hmm....

First I will be testing the Sony FE 28-60mm zoom with the Nauticam WACP, WWL-1 and CMC-1&2 in the future. At this time the N100/45 port with focus wheel (for WWL-1)  and the zoom gear are not available in my area.

Second WACP mounts direct to the housing without a port so use on Ikelite DL or older housings is unlikely. I would guess you would also need a custom flat port with 67mm threads to use the WWL-1. Ikelite has listed the Sony A7c as a housing they may support and if they do I would expect support for the 28-60 kit lens with 67mm thread. 

Regarding image quality WACP has been designed for full frame cameras with high numbers of MP's. So on my 62MP A7R IV I would expect a noticeable difference in image quality V. WWL-1 with the same lens. That said we have outstanding full frame cameras in the 20-26MP range like the Canon EOS R6, Nikon Z6 II and Sony A7 III and A7c. With these lower numbers of MP's I would expect the gap between WACP and WWL-1 to narrow a bit. Without addressing the weight and cost differences both lenses are going to exceed current rectilinear and dome port choices without question. 

I suggest that anyone that does not grasp how a kit lens can out preform a high quality zoom lens and port read Alex Mustard's excellent review in back issue #99 at UWPMAG.com. This is a free PDF download and includes graphs of lens performance tests by Nauticam.

I agree with Adams post that the WWL-1 has barrel distortion on full frame as does the WACP but I would hardly agree that it would be the same as using a fisheye lens on mirrorless full frame. I have been using the Canon 8-15mm fisheye for several years now on full frame with an adapter and to me I can see a clear difference. You can decide for yourself between the images below of the bow of C-53 in Cozumel Mexico. Both images are taken at about as close as you can to the same distance and angle. The first is on a Sony full frame with a Rokinon 12mm fisheye and the other is with the Sony 28mm F/2 and WWL-1.  

 

untitled-02261.jpg

untitled-00467.jpg

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Phil Rudin- Which image was taken with which lens? I get more distortion in the bottom image...

Subject to lens distances may be part of the issue, or the focal lengths.

@Alex_Mustard's WACP review and his discussion of how the corrector port works with lenses, along with the Zeemax lens performance graphs at screen resolution is on Wetpixel here: https://wetpixel.com/articles/review-nauticam-wide-angle-corrector-port

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I pointed out in the post the top image is 12mm fisheye and the bottom is Sony 28mm F/2 with the WWL-1 as recommended by Nauticam.

Perhaps this will help. The attached photo is of the same wreck but from a bit further back with a 114 degree rectilinear lens the Olympus 7-14mm behind a 200mm dome port. If you compare to the two images posted above  the rectilinear shot comes much closer to the WWL-1 than it does to the Fisheye shot.

I missed where someone said they have the same image quality, I did suggest that lower res cameras don't show flaws in lenses as much a high res, cameras and that as a result the gap between WWACP and WWL-1 would not be as pronounced. 

untitled-150042.jpg

Edited by Phil Rudin
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is rather difficult to compare wet contact optics with fisheyes and rectilinear lenses particularly if you only talk about diagonal field of view.  Fisheyes stretch the corners much more than the sides of the frame, this table shows the horizontal vertical and diagonal fields of view for full frame and m43 lenses, WWL is approximated as rectilinear as I don't know the mapping function, just adjusted the focal length to get 130° diagonal field of view.

image.png.39c1537031241392591cdc3b48ec5b4b.png

The net consequence of this is that the WWL/WACP are much closer to fisheye field of view than you would think if you just look at the diagonal.  The horizontal and vertical fields of view are more important as you don't often fit a subject diagonally across the frame. 

As far as the look of the photo subjects towards the centre of frame tend to look fatter than they would in a rectilinear frame.  for example this Eastern blue groper shot cropped from a fisheye frame looks fatter:

 

EasternBlueGroper7.thumb.jpg.b9af2a190d4e5801d30961996f4afb32.jpg

compared to this one shot with a 12-40 lens at 12mm (24mm full frame equivalent)EasternBlueGroper8.thumb.jpg.c79cee8a01bbba97193b056086f0f14c.jpg

The 130° water contact optics are going to be between the two in look and I would think closer to rectilinear look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, waterpixel said:

That seems great, i didn't realize that the WWL-1 gave full zoom-through capability for the 28-60mm.

Oh, please don't quote me on that, until someone has actually tested it. It's likely it will work though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the 28-60 (vs the 28 F2.0) is there any difference in the close focusing abilities due to the increased distance between the lens and the flat port?  One of my favorite things about the WWL is its ability to focus right up to the dome. Has anyone tested that out yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Driftc said:

With the 28-60 (vs the 28 F2.0) is there any difference in the close focusing abilities due to the increased distance between the lens and the flat port?  One of my favorite things about the WWL is its ability to focus right up to the dome. Has anyone tested that out yet?

yes it can focus right to the dome, no worries there ! 

DSC02580.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2020 at 9:58 PM, Phil Rudin said:

As I pointed out in the post the top image is 12mm fisheye and the bottom is Sony 28mm F/2 with the WWL-1 as recommended by Nauticam.

Perhaps this will help. The attached photo is of the same wreck but from a bit further back with a 114 degree rectilinear lens the Olympus 7-14mm behind a 200mm dome port. If you compare to the two images posted above  the rectilinear shot comes much closer to the WWL-1 than it does to the Fisheye shot.

I missed where someone said they have the same image quality, I did suggest that lower res cameras don't show flaws in lenses as much a high res, cameras and that as a result the gap between WWACP and WWL-1 would not be as pronounced. 

 

Phil I am really curious about the comparison WWL and WACP with the 28-60 on the A7RIV. I have just tried the WWL and I am very happy with the results... Have you manage to test both ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Driftc said:

With the 28-60 (vs the 28 F2.0) is there any difference in the close focusing abilities due to the increased distance between the lens and the flat port?  One of my favorite things about the WWL is its ability to focus right up to the dome. Has anyone tested that out yet?

The recommended port for the 28mm f2 is different to that recommended for the 28-60 (Flat port 32 vs Flat port 45)

 

Share this post


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

The recommended port for the 28mm f2 is different to that recommended for the 28-60 (Flat port 32 vs Flat port 45)

 

What I’m wondering about is the 28mm end of the 28-60 behind the flat port. My understanding is that the lens extends as you zoom towards 60mm, therefore leaving more room between the lens and the flat port 45 at the wide end.  Has anyone noticed any difference between the 2 lenses on the wide end with the WWL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Driftc said:

What I’m wondering about is the 28mm end of the 28-60 behind the flat port. My understanding is that the lens extends as you zoom towards 60mm, therefore leaving more room between the lens and the flat port 45 at the wide end.  Has anyone noticed any difference between the 2 lenses on the wide end with the WWL?

No what happens is it's a retracting design that you need to extend before you use it.  It is shortest in the middle of the range and gets about 5mm longer at the wide and tele ends so no problem getting the full angle of view.  Phil Rudin has posted a lot about it here and no vignetting is reported that I recall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a very sharp photo but you can see that at 28mm the lens is very close to the port glass and the difference at the 60mm end is almost identical 1mm +/-. As stated above the lens retracted around the center of the range, this is common for a lot of the newley designed mirrorless lenses. So you do get the full 130 degree AOV with both the WWL-1/B and WACP which uses no port. 

To answer the question regarding the difference between WACP and WWL-1 on A7R IV I have not done any extensive tests in that regard but my limited observations are that the WACP is better in every way. The question is a bit like asking which is best WACP or the S&S conversion lens. You get what you pay for and eliminating the port and the need to shoot through the flat port glass bumps  image quality noticeably in all areas.

 

untitled-2797.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2021 at 2:08 PM, Phil Rudin said:

Not a very sharp photo but you can see that at 28mm the lens is very close to the port glass and the difference at the 60mm end is almost identical 1mm +/-. As stated above the lens retracted around the center of the range, this is common for a lot of the newley designed mirrorless lenses. So you do get the full 130 degree AOV with both the WWL-1/B and WACP which uses no port. 

To answer the question regarding the difference between WACP and WWL-1 on A7R IV I have not done any extensive tests in that regard but my limited observations are that the WACP is better in every way. The question is a bit like asking which is best WACP or the S&S conversion lens. You get what you pay for and eliminating the port and the need to shoot through the flat port glass bumps  image quality noticeably in all areas.

 

untitled-2797.jpg

The issue I see with this WWL-1 or WWL-1/b 130 degree FOV angle  trying to keep your strobes out of your shot. Ever shot Landscape with a 10mm Lens Full Frame? Like the Voigtlander Heliar-Hyper Wide 10mm f/5.6 Aspherical Lens for Sony E mount? Thats 130 degree and try to keep your Tipod legs out of your Landscape photos is a challenge. I speak from experience as I shoot the Voigtlander Heliar-Hyper Wide 10mm f/5.6 quite a bit inside churches to capture the entire architecture or some real wide Landscape shots.

Just saying... I think 28mm in a WWL-1 at 130 degree which will be 10mm is too wide to keep things simple underwater.

Edited by Xterra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2020 at 2:46 PM, Phil Rudin said:

First I will be testing the Sony FE 28-60mm zoom with the Nauticam WACP, WWL-1 and CMC-1&2 in the future. At this time the N100/45 port with focus wheel (for WWL-1)  and the zoom gear are not available in my area.

Second WACP mounts direct to the housing without a port so use on Ikelite DL or older housings is unlikely. I would guess you would also need a custom flat port with 67mm threads to use the WWL-1. Ikelite has listed the Sony A7c as a housing they may support and if they do I would expect support for the 28-60 kit lens with 67mm thread. 

Regarding image quality WACP has been designed for full frame cameras with high numbers of MP's. So on my 62MP A7R IV I would expect a noticeable difference in image quality V. WWL-1 with the same lens. That said we have outstanding full frame cameras in the 20-26MP range like the Canon EOS R6, Nikon Z6 II and Sony A7 III and A7c. With these lower numbers of MP's I would expect the gap between WACP and WWL-1 to narrow a bit. Without addressing the weight and cost differences both lenses are going to exceed current rectilinear and dome port choices without question. 

I suggest that anyone that does not grasp how a kit lens can out preform a high quality zoom lens and port read Alex Mustard's excellent review in back issue #99 at UWPMAG.com. This is a free PDF download and includes graphs of lens performance tests by Nauticam.

I agree with Adams post that the WWL-1 has barrel distortion on full frame as does the WACP but I would hardly agree that it would be the same as using a fisheye lens on mirrorless full frame. I have been using the Canon 8-15mm fisheye for several years now on full frame with an adapter and to me I can see a clear difference. You can decide for yourself between the images below of the bow of C-53 in Cozumel Mexico. Both images are taken at about as close as you can to the same distance and angle. The first is on a Sony full frame with a Rokinon 12mm fisheye and the other is with the Sony 28mm F/2 and WWL-1.  

 

untitled-02261.jpg

untitled-00467.jpg

The images are NOT the same! not sure when you took both but there are SEVERAL MISSING pieces in the images

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2020 at 2:58 PM, Phil Rudin said:

As I pointed out in the post the top image is 12mm fisheye and the bottom is Sony 28mm F/2 with the WWL-1 as recommended by Nauticam.

Perhaps this will help. The attached photo is of the same wreck but from a bit further back with a 114 degree rectilinear lens the Olympus 7-14mm behind a 200mm dome port. If you compare to the two images posted above  the rectilinear shot comes much closer to the WWL-1 than it does to the Fisheye shot.

I missed where someone said they have the same image quality, I did suggest that lower res cameras don't show flaws in lenses as much a high res, cameras and that as a result the gap between WWACP and WWL-1 would not be as pronounced. 

untitled-150042.jpg

same wreck? ALL 3 images of that supposedly same wreck look very different in the details aka missing stack on the right top, rope line lower left all not there? The wreck didnt change that much last time I dived it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting that I have posted three images of different wrecks and then tried to say they are the same wreck? That is a bit of an insult particularly from someone who doesn't even use their real name on any of the his/her posts. 

Why don't you show use your images of this wreck rather than misrepresent mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To readers,

Phil Rudin has been around shooting underwater longer than 99% folks here.

He and I met in Palm Beach "back in the day"  31 years ago for a photo workshop seminar with National Geographic's David Doubilet. Since then Phil has pushed the envelope in underwater imaging equipment testing writing extensively detailed reviews for the UWPhoto Journal and other publications.

His pictures in this post showing the C-53 in Cozumel with different lenses, ports plus the relatively new low cost zoom lens / wet lens choice are guaranteed to help people make informed decisions.

Having dived this wreck with many different combinations of gear I doubt few others have comparison photos to explain lens choices, etc. His detailed notes on what lens, port, etc. are extremely helpful too.

Any post by Phil should be appreciated for the time and effort he's spent sharing with the underwater photographic community over 3 decades :)

David Haas

Stow OH

 

 

Edited by dhaas
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

Are you suggesting that I have posted three images of different wrecks and then tried to say they are the same wreck? That is a bit of an insult particularly from someone who doesn't even use their real name on any of the his/her posts. 

Why don't you show use your images of this wreck rather than misrepresent mine.

Whats my name have to do with critiquing your images? I just pointed out that they look not the same. 
Those photos don't do much anyway as small as they are cropped, unless we can see them in FullSize to inspect the sharpness and details ourselves.
 
Edited by Xterra
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Xterra said:

same wreck? ALL 3 images of that supposedly same wreck look very different in the details aka missing stack on the right top, rope line lower left all not there? The wreck didnt change that much last time I dived it.

It's the same wreck for my money, just look at the location of the surrounding rocks to the hull, wrecks will change over time as corrosion and storms etc take their toll and there is nothing that says they were taken in the same time period.  The purpose of the images was to compare barrel distortion between WWL/fisheye/rectilinear - sharpness and corner performance has been covered in other posts many times.  I agree with Phil the claim it's a different wreck is a bit insulting, please try to keep interactions on this site civil.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Xterra said:

The issue I see with this WWL-1 or WWL-1/b 130 degree FOV angle  trying to keep your strobes out of your shot. Ever shot Landscape with a 10mm Lens Full Frame? Like the Voigtlander Heliar-Hyper Wide 10mm f/5.6 Aspherical Lens for Sony E mount? Thats 130 degree and try to keep your Tipod legs out of your Landscape photos is a challenge. I speak from experience as I shoot the Voigtlander Heliar-Hyper Wide 10mm f/5.6 quite a bit inside churches to capture the entire architecture or some real wide Landscape shots.

Just saying... I think 28mm in a WWL-1 at 130 degree which will be 10mm is too wide to keep things simple underwater.

If a 130° diagonal is too wide then a 180° diagonal fisheye is going to be an even bigger problem and there are plenty of UW photographers using those successfully.  Proper strobe positioning doesn't have the strobes placed anywhere where they will be in the frame.  The strobes are generally placed out to the side and above and well behind the dome to avoid hotspots and there is no danger of them being in the frame.  Not claiming it's simple, but little in UW photography is truly simple.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...