Jump to content
pooley

calling all WWL users

Recommended Posts

theHi,

I''ve got a couple of bucket  list  trips coming up soon -  one  in a few weeks  to Tiger  Beach - that are heavily big animal wide angle based. No matter what I do I can never get  the thought of  wide  water contact  optics  out of  my head!

Current gear is a D500,  which is  great for macro but I've never shot  the big boys with it. For wide angle fish  shots  it's been the smaller stuff like lion fish, morays etc. My shots lack  a little 'bite'  that  I  get from macro but I'm  not  sure  if its my technique or the gear as most of my shots have the kenko 1.4x  added to  my  8-15mm. I won't  need the  converter on my upcoming trips.

I could  go all out and  get  a  Sony  A1 with  WWL  at the  expense of my topside 600mm lens but I can  live with  that as despite my limited diving, underwater remains my favourite genre. 

So  - to go  back  to  the question -  and I know its almost impossible quantify, have you water  contact optic owners noticed a significant IQ improvement from fisheyes in domes or am  I too busy  believing internet hype? 

Im hoping to print a  few shots big for my back room wall. Big to  me is about 18 inches longest  side. 

cheers

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think there is a little bit of hype surrounding the WWL-1. My personal experience is that the WWL-1 is good but not significantly better than a good fisheye + dome setup. For me moving to the WWL-1 did not satisfy my desire for a better wide angle setup, so I kept looking and settled on the Nikonos 13mm (which I'm quite happy with). I should note that I'm mostly shooting natural light at apertures in the f/2.8-f/10 range. Those who use strobes and stop down further may have a different perspective. Either way, I would be surprised if there's a significant difference in image quality between your 8-15mm (assuming it's properly setup) and the WWL-1, so upgrading for that reason alone may not be worthwhile. I would think using your 8-15mm without the teleconverter should improve sharpness a little, and that setup should be perfectly fine for 18 inch prints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Isaac Szabo said:

I do think there is a little bit of hype surrounding the WWL-1. My personal experience is that the WWL-1 is good but not significantly better than a good fisheye + dome setup. For me moving to the WWL-1 did not satisfy my desire for a better wide angle setup, so I kept looking and settled on the Nikonos 13mm (which I'm quite happy with). I should note that I'm mostly shooting natural light at apertures in the f/2.8-f/10 range. Those who use strobes and stop down further may have a different perspective. Either way, I would be surprised if there's a significant difference in image quality between your 8-15mm (assuming it's properly setup) and the WWL-1, so upgrading for that reason alone may not be worthwhile. I would think using your 8-15mm without the teleconverter should improve sharpness a little, and that setup should be perfectly fine for 18 inch prints.

Thanks  Isaac, I appreciate the reply

I have both the zen  4" and Nauticam 8.5"  domes and  recommended extensions, so I'm happy they  are set up correctly. I don't need  ultra sharp corners  for  these trips as  I'm  mainly  shooting blue water corners,  it's more the inner 2/3rds of  the frame Im concerned about. I also don't need to  shoot  wide  open.  

I think  I need  to stay off the  internet  and just enjoy my photos!

cheers

Mike

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mike,

I went down that rabbit hole.  Here's my notes on the experience.  

 

Share this post


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

I think  I need  to stay off the  internet  and just enjoy my photos!

 

Probably good advice.  I think the big improvement is over the rectilinear wide lenses and their need to be stopped way down for decent quality, while WWL can be used at wider apertures. 

Share this post


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

Probably good advice.  I think the big improvement is over the rectilinear wide lenses and their need to be stopped way down for decent quality, while WWL can be used at wider apertures. 

Cheers Chris, both me and my bank manager appreciate that reply!

Mike

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Hi Mike,

I went down that rabbit hole.  Here's my notes on the experience.  

 

currently having a right good read of that thread  - heaps of great info, thanks

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I probably dive different conditions from you (UK deep low vis and dark), but I may have some experience to offer

Recently went from Tokina 10-17mm fish eye on APS-C (~180deg FOV) to 14-45mm+WWL1 on MFT (~130 FOV)

I am really noticing the lack of the extreme wide FOV for WA subjects when at close range (needed in dark/poor vis)

I am still in the honeymoon period with the WWL1 and it’s versatility over a fixed fisheye (I never had zoom gear for the Tokina so only used 10 or 11mm). When I am not chasing other dive gear, I’ll probably be looking at an MFT fisheye & ports to get the extreme wide again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

My 2c on video use:

I have the pana 14-42 mm mk2 and WWL-1B and I had the pana 7-14 mm with 6" dome. I think the overval picture quality is better with WWL-1. Moreover, with the 14-42 I gained double OIS.

But if I compare the picture quality of the 12-35 mm + 6" dome and 14-42 mm + WWL-1B (in the same focal range) there's no story. The 12-35 is in another league. Colors and sharpness are unbelievable.

Edited by Davide DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...