pooley 17 Posted January 8 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
Isaac Szabo 34 Posted January 8 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
pooley 17 Posted January 8 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 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JayceeB 35 Posted January 8 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
ChrisRoss 150 Posted January 8 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
pooley 17 Posted January 8 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 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pooley 17 Posted January 8 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
OwenF 4 Posted January 8 I probably dive different conditions from you (UK deep low vis and dark), but I may have some experience to offerRecently 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
Davide DB 362 Posted January 9 (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 January 9 by Davide DB Share this post Link to post Share on other sites