Jump to content
hedonist222

should I get 5d mkii aquatica housing?

Recommended Posts

I will likely be selling my 5D mk II housing soon. Just upgraded to the R5 topside and am transitioning the underwater gear now. Probably won’t sell my dome port, but will be offering up the macro port, the straight viewfinder and some extension rings.

Two must have lenses…a 15mm fisheye (sigma or canon ) and the 100mm macro. All the other lenses you listed have trade offs in image quality behind domes less than 9 inches or don’t focus close enough (remember that closer is better underwater)

I haven’t really thought about price yet, but can probably set you up well if you are interested.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


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


Two must have lenses…a 15mm fisheye (sigma or canon ) and the 100mm macro. All the other lenses you listed have trade offs in image quality behind domes less than 9 inches or don’t focus close enough (remember that closer is better underwater)

Looking at the port chart, the 17-40 would probably be OK in an 8"dome if you stop down to around f13 or so, the 24-105 requires a +3 diopter as it doesn't focus close enough and a longer extension than the 17-40.    If you are housing say the 17-40 you could purchase the extension for that lens to try out with your 35mm f1.4 if you are determined to try to use it UW.

Share this post


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

Looking at the port chart, the 17-40 would probably be OK in an 8"dome if you stop down to around f13 or so, the 24-105 requires a +3 diopter as it doesn't focus close enough and a longer extension than the 17-40.    If you are housing say the 17-40 you could purchase the extension for that lens to try out with your 35mm f1.4 if you are determined to try to use it UW.

 

Thanks for your advice

I remain determined :)

I picked up the:

 

Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II port #48456

And the 

Canon EF 17-40mm F/4L USM port# 48458

The 35 1.4 dimensions are almost identical to the 24 1.4

I wish someone could or would look up the 35 1.4 focusing thing - I tried but struggled

Willing to barter for helping with accounting :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the database the entrance pupil for the 17-40 is located approx 70mm from the lens flange, measure 70mm from the lens flange and mark that on the lens.  Place your finger there and look into the front of the lens - it may help to mount the lens and stop down the aperture.  That should appear to at the same depth in the lens as the mark, placing your finger on the mark should help visualise that. 

Next do the same with the 35mm f1.4 place your finger on the barrel outside at the depth where the aperture iris appears to be, mark it and measure how far up from the lens flange the mark is.  From that distance I can estimate approximately what sort of extension you need.  _ it's only an approximation mind you but it's better than nothing. 

Unfortunately you need the lens in your hand to estimate where the pupil is.  If it's the same dimension as the 24mm f1.4 I would guess it would need similar extension or slightly less.

The alternative is to just try the 48456 extension and see how the results look.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

According to the database the entrance pupil for the 17-40 is located approx 70mm from the lens flange, measure 70mm from the lens flange and mark that on the lens.  Place your finger there and look into the front of the lens - it may help to mount the lens and stop down the aperture.  That should appear to at the same depth in the lens as the mark, placing your finger on the mark should help visualise that. 

Next do the same with the 35mm f1.4 place your finger on the barrel outside at the depth where the aperture iris appears to be, mark it and measure how far up from the lens flange the mark is.  From that distance I can estimate approximately what sort of extension you need.  _ it's only an approximation mind you but it's better than nothing. 

Unfortunately you need the lens in your hand to estimate where the pupil is.  If it's the same dimension as the 24mm f1.4 I would guess it would need similar extension or slightly less.

The alternative is to just try the 48456 extension and see how the results look.

 

Yes the 48456 is for the 24 1.4 L

 

It looks to be between 5 and 7 cm away from flange.

I'm sorry if I'm burdening with my questions, why would I need to stop down?

 

I'm certain there are optical and physical reasons, but in layman's terms?

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you stop down the lens for this purpose - you can see th diaphragm close so you are certain you are looking at the right spot. - it's not always obvious.

 

Share this post


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

When you stop down the lens for this purpose - you can see th diaphragm close so you are certain you are looking at the right spot. - it's not always obvious.

 

I meant why stop down during shooting - but I see that was already addressed in this thread.

I measured from flange of 35 f/1.4 L to where the diaphragm appears to be:  about 50mm to 70mm  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, hedonist222 said:

I meant why stop down during shooting - but I see that was already addressed in this thread.

I measured from flange of 35 f/1.4 L to where the diaphragm appears to be:  about 50mm to 70mm  

 

I would suggest trying it with your extension for the 24mm, looking at the measurements, the 17-40 extension would be too long I think.   The 35mm will be less fussy about stopping down as the field of view is smaller, but I'd still shoot at f8 at a guess.  If you get a chance in a pool take shots of the pool wall at f5.6/8/11 to see how it performs - using a pool allows you to get parallel to the wall and have even detail of the tiles out to the corner so you can judge where you are happy with corner performance.  You could probably also do it shooting straight down onto sand - take the shots at about 0.5m away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

In demonstration of my gratitude to you all, here are are few JPGs straight out the 5d mkii with the 35 L on.

48456 port and 8" acrylic dome.

f/4 1/60 and 1/100 and ISO 100

They look ok to me?

O1XkaUY.jpg

 

gEGiWrr.jpg

 

EfiHRFZ.jpg

Edited by hedonist222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are taken in air. With air on both sides of the glass, it does not modify the image aside from some very minor loss of sharpness and potential flare. It's when you place it underwater that different refraction indices come into play, and the dome starts acting as an additional lens element. If you google 'dome port theory', you'll find plenty of articles explaining the effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Barmaglot said:

Those are taken in air. With air on both sides of the glass, it does not modify the image aside from some very minor loss of sharpness and potential flare. It's when you place it underwater that different refraction indices come into play, and the dome starts acting as an additional lens element. If you google 'dome port theory', you'll find plenty of articles explaining the effect.

thanks for the input

till I get to try it underwater, what are you suggesting I may find out underwater?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the lens front element is right up against the port glass, I would expect a reduced field of view, smeared corners and some  pincushioning. Being this close to the glass, the effect should be close to a flat port. Here is a 45mm lens (16-50mm @ 30mm on APS-C) shooting through a dome (properly placed near its nodal point), and here is the same lens shooting through flat glass. The effect is more pronounced at wider FoVs, as you can see here for 16mm (24mm-equivalent) through dome, and here through flat glass. For a 35mm lens on full-frame, I would expect the distortion to be somewhere between these two examples. Just for the reference, this is the amount of distortion that a 15mm-equivalent (10mm on APS-C) lens experiences behind a flat glass port.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 5D Mk II is a great camera, but I think you really need to rethink your lens options. As others have pointed out, optics behave significantly differently underwater and many (very good) optics simply do not provide acceptable image quality when used behind a dome port and in the water.

Granted, I have no personal experience of using the 35mm behind  port, but given that no one else in this community has either, I think it is unlikely to work. It really is far too narrow to be a useful focal length underwater anyway. 

Saying that, if you want to go to the time, expense and effort of testing it underwater, I'm sure we will all be very happy to see your results :)

Share this post


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

If the lens front element is right up against the port glass, I would expect a reduced field of view, smeared corners and some  pincushioning. Being this close to the glass, the effect should be close to a flat port. Here is a 45mm lens (16-50mm @ 30mm on APS-C) shooting through a dome (properly placed near its nodal point), and here is the same lens shooting through flat glass. The effect is more pronounced at wider FoVs, as you can see here for 16mm (24mm-equivalent) through dome, and here through flat glass. For a 35mm lens on full-frame, I would expect the distortion to be somewhere between these two examples. Just for the reference, this is the amount of distortion that a 15mm-equivalent (10mm on APS-C) lens experiences behind a flat glass port.

Thank you - I need a bit of time to digest this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, adamhanlon said:

The 5D Mk II is a great camera, but I think you really need to rethink your lens options. As others have pointed out, optics behave significantly differently underwater and many (very good) optics simply do not provide acceptable image quality when used behind a dome port and in the water.

Granted, I have no personal experience of using the 35mm behind  port, but given that no one else in this community has either, I think it is unlikely to work. It really is far too narrow to be a useful focal length underwater anyway. 

Saying that, if you want to go to the time, expense and effort of testing it underwater, I'm sure we will all be very happy to see your results :)

Technically speaking, the 35 is about 99% of the 24 L.

The port extension  was designed for the 24L.

Size-wise, the 24 L and 35L are almost identical.

 

But you're right. I am unsure and would like to find out.

Worst case scenario, I either get a 24mm or sell the extension ring.

Photographs in a weeks time :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess given that most people use the 16-35mm at the 16mm end for most underwater use, I think the 24mm is probably a poor choice too. We need ultra wide angle lenses due to water's inherent effect of reducing FOV. 
It is also not simply a question of getting a similar extension in terms of the overall lens dimensions. Some lenses simply do not work well behind a dome port. The only way to know whether a given lens works or not is to experiment (or find someone else that has!) To reiterate, this is to do with lens design, and is not related to the lens's physical dimensions. 
A good pointer though is to look at manufacturer's port charts. They list the bulk of lenses that are known performers. If the lens you are seeking to use does not appear this is a good indicator that the lens performs poorly. 
Look forward to seeing your pictures...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could contact aquatica directly. They are very helpful. I have a nikon d60 and use a nikon 16-85mm lens which is not on the port or extension chart. Jean at aquatica told us the correct extension to use. My buddy uses a nikon d90 with the same extension and port. Your 24-105 and 17-40 should work. I use my 16-85mm lens to do 1:1 macro to mild wide angle. I have only one lens which offers easier travel and when you have one shot at each dive site you can shoot a variety of shots. 

https://reefscenics.smugmug.com/Underwater/Red-Sea/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2021 at 6:33 PM, hedonist222 said:

In demonstration of my gratitude to you all, here are are few JPGs straight out the 5d mkii with the 35 L on.

48456 port and 8" acrylic dome.

f/4 1/60 and 1/100 and ISO 100

They look ok to me?

O1XkaUY.jpg

 

gEGiWrr.jpg

 

EfiHRFZ.jpg

Hmm

Aquatica said to use the 48458 (same as 17-40 port) instead of the 48456 (the 24L port)

I took the below with the 35 L and 8" aquatica acrylic dome

Not as sharp/vinbrant as the 48458 port

How come?

NoWn2k2.jpg

4CQudGH.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, hedonist222 said:

I took the below with the 35 L and 8" aquatica acrylic dome 

Not as sharp/vinbrant as the 48458 port 

Again, you're taking test shots in air. This is absolutely irrelevant as far as underwater performance is concerned, because the dome acts as an additional lens element underwater. Imagine comparing two different teleconverters by taking shots without actually mounting them between the lens and the camera. Get your rig to a pool, or at least a bathtub, and compare in there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Barmaglot said:

Again, you're taking test shots in air. This is absolutely irrelevant as far as underwater performance is concerned, because the dome acts as an additional lens element underwater. Imagine comparing two different teleconverters by taking shots without actually mounting them between the lens and the camera. Get your rig to a pool, or at least a bathtub, and compare in there.

thanks - now I understand more.

 

hopefully this weekend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I finally got to use the 5d mkii, aquatica housing / 8" dome and 35 L

JPGs straight out the camera (no post processing)

All taken with backscatter video light (4300 lumens) - except the last one (natural light at safety  stop)

wrkc2pV.jpg

LtFIhEo.jpg

Iu77xhA.jpg

1Yoe41R.jpg

gwMtaWv.jpg

CfxTs9a.jpg

wFEMoMO.jpg

 

 

 

Edited by hedonist222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats!

so, the only thing that really matters….. are you happy with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, TimG said:

Congrats!

so, the only thing that really matters….. are you happy with it?

Thanks, Tim.

So far so good.

I obviously need to teach myself to illuminate for wide angle - as the majority of my photography has been macro.

 

But quality-wise, did the lens "work"?

Early on in this thread, the discussion was around apprehension and doubt that this lens would work in the dome/port - as dome ports are designed around particular lenses and their characteristics.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, am I happy with the quality of photographs?

Of course not haha.

Here are some of my photographs with the tg6:

GkBQcjV.jpg

WWrgLyH.jpg

mDw0dyz.jpg

shwgfwd.jpg

cDwTDAr.jpg

ILjkjXr.jpg

iYFehAq.jpg

FjmLhS0.jpg

ajWi5Ld.jpg

qvMJzPS.jpg

vguESIT.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hedonist222 said:

obviously need to teach myself to illuminate for wide angle - as the majority of my photography has been macro

Yeah, not an easy thing. I generally think it’s about identifying an element of the reef to highlight and light, not all of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...