Jump to content
Architeuthis

Performance of WACP1 with different lenses/camera systems?

Recommended Posts

THIS ENTRY HAS BEEN REVISED AND UPDATED - SEE LATER POST (Tim - Moderator)

 

 

I just looked up in the Nauticam port charts for FF Canon/Nikon/Sony zoom lenses compatible with WAPC1, that are marked with asteriks (*), indicating that these WACP1/lens combinations give the best optical performance. I ended up with the table below (discontinued lenses marked by grey/italics; please correct, in case there are errors).

 

Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM | A; Converted FOV 132-76o (available for Canon and Nikon; usable on R camera via adapter (Nikon F and/or Z?)) - APS-C/DX lens, not applicable for FF!

Canon EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II; Converted FOV 130-59o (usable on R camera via adapter; discontinued lens, available second hand)

Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 II; Converted FOV 130-54o (usable on R camera via adapter; discontinued lens, available second hand)

Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 V USM; Converted FOV 130-54o (usable on R camera via adapter; discontinued lens, available second hand)

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM; Converted FOV 130-100o (usable on R camera via adapter)

Nikkor Z 24-70mm f/4 S; Converted FOV 130-121o (I guess 121° at the narrow end is a printing error in the port chart?)

Sony FE 28-60mm F4-5.6; Converted FOV 130-69o

Sony 2870 FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS; Converted FOV 130-59o

Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III RXD; Converted FOV 130-90o (Sony E mount)

 

Is the FOV range the only criterium to decide wich lens to acquire ore are there differences in optical quality that someone did notice inbetween possible lenses for a given camera system (center-, corner-sharpness, usable aperture, anything else)?

Did someone notice differences in optical performance inbetween the optimum combinations for the different camera systems?

In particular, when comparing Sony 28-60 with 28-70, is 28-70 the better lens, because of the wider zoom range, or is there something else to consider (except price)?

 

Interested to read your opinion and thanks for answers, Wolfgang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the three options for Sony I have used all three lenses and this is my take.

The Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 is a very decent option v the expensive Sony 24-70 F/2.8. The problem with this lens and several others is that don't zoom all the way through using WACP-1. So the lens stops zooming when it hits the rear glass on the WACP-1 not ideal for the expensive glass.

The Sony 28-60 is a small newly designed lens with better optics, speed and overall flexibility than the 28-70. It will focus at 30 FPS v. 15 FPS for 28-70. While this is not a common shooting speed underwater it allows faster focus and focus accuracy over 28-70. The 28-60 can also be used WWL-1/1B and CMC 1 & 2 closeup lenses in a smaller package. Regarding the 10 degree difference on the long end this is not something I often use and if I want a longer focal length I can always switch to APS-C mode and extend the range by 1.5 X at 26PM with A7R IV and 21MP with A1.

I also favor 28-60 with Sony A7C using WWL-1B for a small light travel package.

I have used just about every Wide angle rectilinear lens made for Sony with the Zen 230mm dome port and none outperforms the WACP or WWL-1 with the 28-60mm.

The attached is A7C with the 28-60 and WACP-1.

 

E195650E-F7E1-4722-B617-39B8E3736C87.JPG

Edited by Phil Rudin
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Is the FOV range the only criterium to decide wich lens to acquire ore are there differences in optical quality that someone did notice inbetween possible lenses for a given camera system (center-, corner-sharpness, usable aperture, anything else)?

 

Useful list; I was not aware that the Z 24-70/4 kit lens even works with the WACP-1!  My understanding from having watched Adam's Wetpixel Live interview with Edward Lai is that it is the physical size of the front element of the lens being adapted that is critical and that the quality of the lens is not important. My recollection of that video is that this critical dimension is about 60mm which brings up the Nikon kit lens as it uses 72mm filters. I just now removed the polarizing filter on my copy of this lens and note that the front element is quite a bit less in diameter than the filter thread. It is recessed so not possible to measure with what I have but could be as small as 60mm. The lens extends when zoomed to focal lengths longer than 24mm so I surmise that the position of the front element may be less critical than its diameter.

Edited by Tom_Kline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Nikon Z 24-70 F/4 suffers from the same issues as the Tamron 28-75 F/2.8 on Sony. The zoom range is only 28 to 32 before the lens bumps the rear of WACP-1. This gives you a total AOV of 130 to 121 not really taking advantage of the full zoom range. 

If you want to take advantage of the full zoom range from an AOV 130 to 59 degrees the only current choice for Nikon Z  is the Sony FE 28 to 70mm with the Techart Pro auto focus adapter. 

The Z 35mm also works but at 110 degrees only.

Edited by Phil Rudin
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Useful list; I was not aware that the Z 24-70/4 kit lens even works with the WACP-1!  ...

The list is compiled just from looking at the Nauticam port charts, I do not have practical experience with digital FF, but consider to acquire a FF system (and the lens/port combinations are important to decide wich ysstem). I hope I did not overlook an important combination and there may well be combinations that give excellent results as well, but are not marked with asteriks by Nauticam. E.g. the Sony 28-60mm/WWL1 combination is not marked with asteriks (as many other lens/WACP1 combinations) - I assume this combination is optically inferior to 28-60mm/WACP1?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I think you might be misinterpreting those asterisks in the port chart. They only exist when Nauticam is suggesting two possible combinations of ports (two version of WACP-1) and port extensions. In this, they just indicate for a particular lens which combination they feel is optically better.

The asterisk, as far as I can tell, is not meant to say which lens will work better with the WACP-1. I think the lenses without ambiguous port extension choices may have better performance. But maybe I'm missing something.

Edited by ScubaLute
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

I just looked up in the Nauticam port charts for FF Canon/Nikon/Sony zoom lenses compatible with WAPC1, that are marked with asteriks (*), indicating that these WACP1/lens combinations give the best optical performance. I ended up with the table below (discontinued lenses marked by grey/italics; please correct, in case there are errors).

 

Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM | A; Converted FOV 132-76o (available for Canon and Nikon; usable on R camera via adapter (Nikon F and/or Z?)) - APS-C/DX lens, not applicable for FF!

Canon EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II; Converted FOV 130-59o (usable on R camera via adapter; discontinued lens, available second hand)

Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 II; Converted FOV 130-54o (usable on R camera via adapter; discontinued lens, available second hand)

Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 V USM; Converted FOV 130-54o (usable on R camera via adapter; discontinued lens, available second hand)

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM; Converted FOV 130-100o (usable on R camera via adapter)

Nikkor Z 24-70mm f/4 S; Converted FOV 130-121o (I guess 121° at the narrow end is a printing error in the port chart?)

Sony FE 28-60mm F4-5.6; Converted FOV 130-69o

Sony 2870 FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS; Converted FOV 130-59o

Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III RXD; Converted FOV 130-90o (Sony E mount)

 

Is the FOV range the only criterium to decide wich lens to acquire ore are there differences in optical quality that someone did notice inbetween possible lenses for a given camera system (center-, corner-sharpness, usable aperture, anything else)?

Did someone notice differences in optical performance inbetween the optimum combinations for the different camera systems?

In particular, when comparing Sony 28-60 with 28-70, is 28-70 the better lens, because of the wider zoom range, or is there something else to consider (except price)?

 

Interested to read your opinion and thanks for answers, Wolfgang

I believe the asterisk indicates which of the two or more options of extension or other factors offers the best performance.

On the 24-70 I think the 130-121° range is correct, they also provide the usable zoom range which is 28-32mm that lens extends by 30mm going from 27 -> 70 mm and probably hits the inside of the port at 32mm.

I would think the best utility would be obtained with a 28-70 or 80mm lens.  While the 16-35/40 class lenses work, the range from 16-17-28 is unusable.  The other thing to watch is that the old 28-70 offering from Nikon F mount probably won't be usable on Z mount via adapter as it doesn't have an on-board focus motor and Z mount won't drive these lenses.

I don't have the data to prove it, but based on the premise that an old 28-70 kit lens can out perform the latest wide angle lens in a dome and the praises sung about the image quality out of the WACP with these lenses, I would think any improvement would be in the pixel peeping range and I'd much rather have the zoom range to better frame subjects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2021 at 4:48 PM, Phil Rudin said:

Regarding the three options for Sony I have used all three lenses and this is my take.

The Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 is a very decent option v the expensive Sony 24-70 F/2.8. The problem with this lens and several others is that don't zoom all the way through using WACP-1. So the lens stops zooming when it hits the rear glass on the WACP-1 not ideal for the expensive glass.

The Sony 28-60 is a small newly designed lens with better optics, speed and overall flexibility than the 28-70. It will focus at 30 FPS v. 15 FPS for 28-70. While this is not a common shooting speed underwater it allows faster focus and focus accuracy over 28-70. The 28-60 can also be used WWL-1/1B and CMC 1 & 2 closeup lenses in a smaller package. Regarding the 10 degree difference on the long end this is not something I often use and if I want a longer focal length I can always switch to APS-C mode and extend the range by 1.5 X at 26PM with A7R IV and 21MP with A1.

I also favor 28-60 with Sony A7C using WWL-1B for a small light travel package.

I have used just about every Wide angle rectilinear lens made for Sony with the Zen 230mm dome port and none outperforms the WACP or WWL-1 with the 28-60mm.

The attached is A7C with the 28-60 and WACP-1.

 

E195650E-F7E1-4722-B617-39B8E3736C87.JPG

So if I understand correctly you rather use the WWL-1 than the WACP on the Sony?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

So if I understand correctly you rather use the WWL-1 than the WACP on the Sony?

No 121 this is not what I was intending to convey. The Nauticam WACP-1 is clearly a superior optic too the WWL-1 and while I have not yet tested the WACP-2 my research indicates that WACP-2 out performs WACP-1 perhaps because it is used with Pro quality lenses like the Sony FE 14mm F/1.8.

I believe what I said is that the WWL-1 with the Sony A7C and 28-60 is more travel friendly than say the Sony A1 or A7R IV with the WACP-1 or 2. I have traveled with all of these systems (except WACP-2) and the A7C system is simply smaller and lighter a no brainer I would think. Optical quality is a different issue and as stated above with all three cameras WACP-1 is the clear winner and WWL-1 is the clear winner over any lens and port combo.

What I wanted the original poster to understand, because he ask is that having tested both 28-60 & 28-70 with WACP-1 and 28-60 with WWL-1 my choice hands down would be 28-60 for the reasons I articulated above.

Regarding the Nauticam asterisk system also referenced by the original poster, the system has changed a bit over time with the addition of water contact optical. So the Sony FE 14mm F/1.8 which I reviewed in the current issue of uwpmag.com has an asterisk for the WACP-2 the only wet wide optic it will work with. It also shows an asterisk for the 230mm optical glass dome port. The chart also indicates the 14mm can be used with Nauticam 180mm, 8.5 inch acrylic, 230mm and 250mm dome ports. The asterisk indicates that of the four dome choices that the 230mm port and extension combo gives the best performance of the four. The WACP-2 will clearly outperform the 230mm choice.

I hope this resolves any misunderstanding.

 

Edited by Phil Rudin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No 121 this is not what I was intending to convey. The Nauticam WACP-1 is clearly a superior optic too the WWL-1 and while I have not yet tested the WACP-2 my research indicates that WACP-2 out performs WACP-1 perhaps because it is used with Pro quality lenses like the Sony FE 14mm F/1.8.
I believe what I said is that the WWL-1 with the Sony A7C and 28-60 is more travel friendly than say the Sony A1 or A7R IV with the WACP-1 or 2. I have traveled with all of these systems and the A7C system is simply smaller and lighter a no brainer I would think. Optical quality is a different issue and as stated above with all three cameras WACP-1 is the clear winner and WWL-1 is the clear winner over any lens and port combo.
What I wanted the original poster to understand, because he ask is that having tested both 28-60 & 28-70 with WACP-1 and 28-60 with WWL-1 my choice hands down would be 28-60 for the reasons I articulated above.
Regarding the Nauticam asterisk system also referenced by the original poster, the system has changed a bit over time with the addition of water contact optical. So the Sony FE 14mm F/1.8 which I reviewed in the current issue of uwpmag.com has an asterisk for the WACP-2 the only wet wide optic it will work with. It also shows an asterisk for the 230mm optical glass dome port. The chart also indicates the 14mm can be used with Nauticam 180mm, 8.5 inch acrylic, 230mm and 250mm dome ports. The asterisk indicates that of the four dome choices that the 230mm port and extension combo gives the best performance of the four. The WACP-2 will clearly outperform the 230mm choice.
I hope this resolves any misunderstanding.
 

That makes it clearer thank you
I would have thought a dry corrector like wacp would be better and it is
Thank you


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2021 at 5:31 AM, ScubaLute said:

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I think you might be misinterpreting those asterisks in the port chart. They only exist when Nauticam is suggesting two possible combinations of ports (two version of WACP-1) and port extensions. In this, they just indicate for a particular lens which combination they feel is optically better.

The asterisk, as far as I can tell, is not meant to say which lens will work better with the WACP-1. I think the lenses without ambiguous port extension choices may have better performance. But maybe I'm missing something.

Thank you (and Chris and Phil) for clarifying the asteriks system. I have asked Nauticam how to interpret the asteriks system on their portchartsb three days ago ,but did not get a reponse. Seems they are not interested in explaining how to read their portcharts...

I also believe now that the asterikses are only good for choosing the best extension/port combination for a given lens, but the asteriks are not meaningful to discriminate optical quality inbetween different lenses...

I have compiled a new list of available lenses and will post it soon...

 

Wolfgang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the comments here, I have compiled a new list of zoom lenses that are available for different FF systems with WACP1 (my perception of naticam's asteriks system in the port charts turned out to be wrong). I also have added the posted practical experience posted here (hope I cited rightfully). What regards me, I already now have learned a lot from the comments here. This will be valuable for me, when choosing FF camera system and lens/WACP1 combination.

Further comments and notes on practical experience highly appreciated, I will put comments directly into the list as they are posted and I am able to edit the list...

I apologize for initially posting the inadequate list. I cannot edit it any more - could a moderator please put the new list on the top, so that it is better visible?

Wolfgang

 

New list. UW-photographers please state on practical experience and comment on optical performance (ideally comparison between different lenses, even inbetween camera systems):

Canon EF-mount:

 

Canon EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II; Converted FOV 130-59o; Zoom Range 30-70mm (discontinued lens, available second hand)

 

Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 II; Converted FOV 130-54o (discontinued lens, available second hand)

Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 V USM; Converted FOV 130-54o (discontinued lens, available second hand)

 

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 III USM; Converted FOV 138-109º; Zoom Range 28-35mm

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM; Converted FOV 130-100o; Zoom Range 28-40mm

 

 

Canon RF-mount (all EF mount lenses are compatible via adapter):

 

None

 

 

Nikon F-mount:

 

Nikon AF Nikkor 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5D; Converted FOV 130-59º (discontinued lens, available second hand)

 

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR; Converted FOV 130-109º; Zoom Range 28-35mm

 

Nikon AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED; Converted FOV 130-109º; Zoom Range 28-35mm

 

Nikon AF-S 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED; Converted FOV 130-109º

 

 

 

Nikon Z-mount (are Nikon-F mount lenses usable via adapter?):

 

Nikkor Z 24-70mm f/4 S; Converted FOV 130-121o; Zoom Range 28-32mm (According to Phil the lens bumps against WAPC when zoomed out, 121° is the narrowest angle possible)

Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS with Techart PRO Autofocus Adaptor; Converted FOV 130-59º

Sony FE 28-60mm F4-5.6; Converted FOV 130-69o; not mentioned in Nauticam Portchart for WACP1 (version of 26th September 2021), but possibly compatible using Techart PRO adapter?

 

 

Panasonic L-mount:

 

Panasonic Lumix S 24-105mm f/4; Converted FOV 130-112º; Zoom Range 28-33mm

Canon EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II with Sigma Mount Converter MC-21; Converted FOV 130-59º; Zoom Range 28-70mm

 

 

Sony FE mount:

 

 

 

Sony FE 28-60mm F4-5.6; Converted FOV 130-69o; According to Phil this lens gives best optical performance of all Sony lenses. Also works very well with WWL1B, but optically not as good as with WACP1.

Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS; Converted FOV 130-59o (usable at all focal length with WACP1, but according to Opticallimits the optical quality is lousy: https://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/999-sony2870f3556oss)

Sony FE 24-70 mm f/2.8 GM; not mentioned in Nauticam Portchart for WACP1 (version of 26th September 2021; According to Phil the lens works, but bumps against WAPC when zoomed out).

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Art; Converted FOV 127º; Zoom Range 29mm (according to Nauticam is only working at 29mm).

Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III RXD; Converted FOV 130-90o; Zoom Range 28-45mm

Edited by Architeuthis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

I apologize for initially posting the inadequate list. I cannot edit it any more - could a moderator please put the new list on the top, so that it is better visible?

I've flagged up your original one, Wolfgang that you have updated and revised it. Many thanks! Much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

Thank you (and Chris and Phil) for clarifying the asteriks system. I have asked Nauticam how to interpret the asteriks system on their portchartsb three days ago ,but did not get a reponse. Seems they are not interested in explaining how to read their portcharts...

I also believe now that the asterikses are only good for choosing the best extension/port combination for a given lens, but the asteriks are not meaningful to discriminate optical quality inbetween different lenses...

I have compiled a new list of available lenses and will post it soon...

 

Wolfgang

I have finally got an answer from Phil Burghard from Nauticam:

"Thank you for reaching out. Yes, that is correct that the combinations marked with a blue asterisk will provide the best optical quality. For the lens and port recommendations which only have one option, then that option is the best and only option for that lens. So therefore you won't find any asterisk as the best option is the only option. I hope that helps clear things up, but if you have any other questions please let us know."

=> so it is as suspected by the others: the asteriks system designates the best extension/post combinations for a given lens...

 

Wolfgang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear the WACP-1 and WACP-2 mount directly to the housing (so no port) this means that any brand of zoom lens that can not fully extend has no where to go but to bump the rear of the wet optic if it is extended to far. With optics like WWL-1/1B, WWL-C, SMC/CMC a port is between the lens and optic so a zoom that is too long would be hitting the inside of the port glass. 

Also in the port chart regarding the Sony FE 24-70mm F/2.8 and WACP-2 the Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 will also hit the rear of the WACP-1 optic.

The point here is regardless of the camera/lens brand the port charts need to be reviewed very closely if you want to have a lens that can be zoomed through completely without touching rear optic with WACP 1&2. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The point here is regardless of the camera/lens brand the port charts need to be reviewed very closely if you want to have a lens that can be zoomed through completely without touching rear optic with WACP 1&2. 

To continue on Phil's point to read the port chart look at the far right column and you can see that some lenses list a zoom range and others do not. Here's a portion of the port chartCaptureWP.thumb.JPG.377aae7fa6cf16577b6e2a9580824298.JPG

If it does not list a zoom range then you can use the full zoom range of the lens.  If it does list the zoom range it indicates that either the lens needs to be zoomed in to remove vignetting or that the lens hits the rear element of the WACP and can't be zoomed further.

In the example above the 16-35 needs to be zoomed into the 28mm to avoid vignetting and at 28mm it gets the full 130° diagonal field.  Other lenses may need to be zoomed into 30 or more mm to remove the vignette for example the second option for the Canon 28-70 II which needs to zoom to 30mm and the max field reduces to 125°.

If the limit on the long end of the zoom range is less than the full lens zoom range the lens hits the rear element when zooming in.

The port chart is here, there are similar charts for all the water contact optics:

https://www.nauticam.com/pages/0-36x-wacp-wide-angle-conversion-port-chart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If using a Canon R5 with a WACP-1, the optimal lens listed by Nauticam is the 28-70 II f3.5-4.5.  If you are using this setup for video be aware that this is a lens with old technology.  If you are panning or swimming through a tunnel for example, it chatters as it hunts for focus.  I bought another 28-70 thinking the one I had was defective.  The second one did the same thing.  I tried the 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 V USM, a quieter lens, but the image quality didn't match the 28-70.

Even if you are attaching your own audio post, the image can jump when it tries for quick autofocus.  My solution has been to hamstring the AF by reducing the speed and sensitivity on various settings.  Of course for stills this not an issue and the image quality is outstanding.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, helgromite said:

If using a Canon R5 with a WACP-1, the optimal lens listed by Nauticam is the 28-70 II f3.5-4.5.  If you are using this setup for video be aware that this is a lens with old technology.  If you are panning or swimming through a tunnel for example, it chatters as it hunts for focus.  I bought another 28-70 thinking the one I had was defective.  The second one did the same thing.  I tried the 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 V USM, a quieter lens, but the image quality didn't match the 28-70.

Even if you are attaching your own audio post, the image can jump when it tries for quick autofocus.  My solution has been to hamstring the AF by reducing the speed and sensitivity on various settings.  Of course for stills this not an issue and the image quality is outstanding.

Just to clarify the recommended extension for the 28-80 is 5mm longer than the optimal extension for the 28-70II.  Did you use the longer extension when you tried the lens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I bought the longer extension to try the 28-80, gambling that it would be equal to the 28-70, but it just didn't match the the sharpness at the edges based on testing in the pool.  I suppose I could use a modern fixed 28mm and give up the zoom on some video dives.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, helgromite said:

Yes, I bought the longer extension to try the 28-80, gambling that it would be equal to the 28-70, but it just didn't match the the sharpness at the edges based on testing in the pool.  I suppose I could use a modern fixed 28mm and give up the zoom on some video dives.

Thanks, another good data point

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admire the WACP-1 and am convinced it offers great image quality potential and other and benefits.  But I am somewhat put off by the fact that this very expensive lens often works best with out-of-production lenses, or lenses likely to go out of production, such as some of  the the Canon EF range, and/or works  in only a limited focal length range with current lenses.  Good luck finding a clean 28-70 3.5-4.5 D lens for a D850.  (The notable exception appears to be Sony with its 28-60). Buyers are far more likely to choose mirrorless cameras going forward, and to purchase lenses that are at least compatible with those new cameras.  Not many full frame 28-xx 3.5, or crop format 18-55 3.5 lenses are being made for mirrorless.

I feel the WACP it is overly expensive, heavy and large if just using it to convert a fixed 28mm lens into a fixed  ultrawide (weitwinkel) semi-rectilinear lens, except perhaps for specific purposes or those being paid to take the photographs.

I admit to some temptation to get a WACP and use it with a D500 and the 18-55 lens.  Sharper corners at larger apertures allows more flexibility in shutter speed and ISO settings and the large zoom range offers some of that "one lens covering different subjects" kind of benefit.  But unlike a dome port that can be used with a variety of lenses across brands, and will likely work with new lenses as they are developed, the WACP seems to be fairly limited and inflexible.  Increasingly, lens makers are not making 28-70 type lenses, except for large, fast lenses, opting for wider focal lengths instead.  Strangely enough, Nauticam does not even list the WACP-1 as compatible with, nor does it make a zoom ring for, the newer version of the 18-55, that may still be in production and offers improved focus speed. 

Maybe I am wrong about this?   I suppose there is no reason I can't use the D500 and an 18-55 for several years, and it may not really matter what other cameras or lenses it fits?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Draq said:

I admire the WACP-1 and am convinced it offers great image quality potential and other and benefits.  But I am somewhat put off by the fact that this very expensive lens often works best with out-of-production lenses, or lenses likely to go out of production, such as some of  the the Canon EF range, and/or works  in only a limited focal length range with current lenses.  Good luck finding a clean 28-70 3.5-4.5 D lens for a D850.  (The notable exception appears to be Sony with its 28-60). Buyers are far more likely to choose mirrorless cameras going forward, and to purchase lenses that are at least compatible with those new cameras.  Not many full frame 28-xx 3.5, or crop format 18-55 3.5 lenses are being made for mirrorless.

 

Nikon has a particular problem as the Z mount cameras do not have an onboard focus motor and many of these old lenses do not have an AF motor and need a camera body so equipped.  The EOS lenses for Canon should continue to function.

I do suspect though that if the 16-35 class lenses will work behind the WACP, there is a chance more lenses may be produced that will work  The arrival of the Z mount lenses will probably drive finding some more suitable lenses as using the 28-35 range only of a 16-35 seems a little limiting.  The problem is many of the the otherwise suitable zooms extend quite a bit as they zoom and are limited on the long end by pumping into the port.  The availability of an AF adapter to use with the Sony 28-60 on Z mount also seems promising - it's listed on the port chart for the WACP.

Share this post


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

Nikon has a particular problem as the Z mount cameras do not have an onboard focus motor and many of these old lenses do not have an AF motor and need a camera body so equipped.

Nobody is planning to make an adapter with a focus motor? Sony has those for the old Minolta screwdriver-AF lenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Draq said:

I admire the WACP-1 and am convinced it offers great image quality potential and other and benefits.  But I am somewhat put off by the fact that this very expensive lens often works best with out-of-production lenses, or lenses likely to go out of production, such as some of  the the Canon EF range, and/or works  in only a limited focal length range with current lenses.  Good luck finding a clean 28-70 3.5-4.5 D lens for a D850.  (The notable exception appears to be Sony with its 28-60). Buyers are far more likely to choose mirrorless cameras going forward, and to purchase lenses that are at least compatible with those new cameras.  Not many full frame 28-xx 3.5, or crop format 18-55 3.5 lenses are being made for mirrorless.

I feel the WACP it is overly expensive, heavy and large if just using it to convert a fixed 28mm lens into a fixed  ultrawide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) semi-rectilinear lens, except perhaps for specific purposes or those being paid to take the photographs.

I admit to some temptation to get a WACP and use it with a D500 and the 18-55 lens.  Sharper corners at larger apertures allows more flexibility in shutter speed and ISO settings and the large zoom range offers some of that "one lens covering different subjects" kind of benefit.  But unlike a dome port that can be used with a variety of lenses across brands, and will likely work with new lenses as they are developed, the WACP seems to be fairly limited and inflexible.  Increasingly, lens makers are not making 28-70 type lenses, except for large, fast lenses, opting for wider focal lengths instead.  Strangely enough, Nauticam does not even list the WACP-1 as compatible with, nor does it make a zoom ring for, the newer version of the 18-55, that may still be in production and offers improved focus speed. 

Maybe I am wrong about this?   I suppose there is no reason I can't use the D500 and an 18-55 for several years, and it may not really matter what other cameras or lenses it fits?

 

I agree that the WACP1 is not ideal for cropped sensors. For APS-C there is the Tokina 10-17mm (diagonal AOV 167° - 92°) and for MFT the Canon 8-15mm (dAOV 170° - 85°), that can be used behind a 140mm (even a 100mm) domeport and provide similar (but not identical) AOVs compared to WACP1. I believe that IQ and fisheye distortion are pretty similar to the WACP1 on FF at the same AOV (dAOV 130°- up to 59°, depending on lens), when compared to the fisheye lenses on smaller sensors. I currently use the Canon 8-15mm with 140mm (sometimes 100mm) dome on my EM1II and to not feel the faintest urge to acquire a WACP1, that according to the Nauticam portcharts would be compatible with the Zuiko 12-40mm, as I do not see how this could lead to any technical improvements in IQ over the Canon fisheye. I did, however, not see such a direct comparison so far, this is my assumption, I am eager to learn more from real worls comparisons...

When we come to FF, the situation is completely different, since there is no zoom fisheye lens in sight that covers the 15mm - 30mm range (and the existing, beautiful, 8-15mm fisheyes can be used just as two mode lenses, toggling between circular fisheye (requiring dismounting the dome shade and seldom used) and 180° dAOV). I believe such a 15-30mm zoom fisheye behind a 140mm port would be the WA lens of choice for many  UW-photographers. Here comes the WACP1 into the play that allows to use the low light advantage of the bigger sensor by providing sharp images at relatively low f numbers (compared to rectilinear WA lens behind a (large) domeport). MAYBE an alternative is the Sony 28-60mm lens with WWL1 as described by Phil, but he says the IQ is not as good as the same lens behind WACP1. My thought on the WWL1/WACP1 choice here is: Who wants to have a good, but not the best, configuration, when investing 10k++ into a FF setup?

Nikon may be different case, presenting even more problems to the customer. I am not familiar with this system, but have heared that some of the old Nikon lenses can not be used in automatic mode on the new Z mirrorless cameras to which every Nikon user will have to upgrade, sooner or later (but I did not study which of the lenses are those). This is an additional obstacle that prevents investing into a WACP1, when with Nikon...

 

Wolfgang

Edited by Architeuthis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the many upsides of mirrorless cameras is that you can find an adapter for almost any lens. Because Nikon chose to use a very large lens mount size on the Z-mirrorless line the TechArt Pro auto focus adapter fits inside the Z lens mount sitting flush with the mount. List allows Sony FE lenses to also fit flush on the adapter because of their smaller diameter. This means that you can not only use the FE 28-60 lens but also lenses like the 12-24 and others with proper port size and extension. Because the WACP-1 fits directly onto the 120 nauticam port mount this lens will work perfectly.

The WWL-1 with Sony FE 28-60 on Nikon Z is not the same case because this configuration needs a matching port. With Sony housings this is not a problem because Nauticam has a 45 port with focus wheel in the 100 mount size to match the WWL-1/1B. The 120 Nikon Z system has no such port at this time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...