Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Draq said:

I feel tempted to get one of these WACP-C optics, but seem to recall a discussion here or perhaps on Wetpixel Live where Alex Mustard said he was not that impressed with the original WACP design (now embodied in the "c" version), and that led to the WACP-1.  A brief search for that was unsuccessful, and I may be remembering the comment incorrectly, but will continue searching for it.  maybe someone has a link handy.

I am sure the "C" performance is less impressive than the other models, but have no idea by how much, and I would be using it on a crop sensor. 

To save time you can look at the post above by Alex, it seems clear that he expects the WACP-C will "out preform" WWL-1 and "be not quite as good as WACP-1" I think that this seems logical given the price point of each lens. 

Edited by Phil Rudin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2022 at 11:30 PM, Architeuthis said:

Thank you Phil, I corrected the mistake...:good:

Wolfgang

 

P.S.: I do not have personal experience with WWL-1, but on several occasions I read that UW-photographers use an O-ring (even sold by a company) to prevent train out of water from the port/WWL-1 interface, in order to be able to make split shots. Seems to work, althgough probably not a very versatile solution...

I use the WWL-C on a Nikon Z50 with 16-50 kit lens. I experimented with a 2.5 x 58 O-ring to retain the water between the flat port and the WWL-C to see if it was useful for over/under pictures. I couldn't get acceptable results with this.

Optically the WWL-C seems fine to me, weighs only a kg and is less than $1000. For most people who travel I think this is an option worth considering. My Sigma 8-16 behind a dome has a wider view and does over/under shots well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll check with Nauticam to see if we can get some clarity. The reason I wanted to check is that the 24-70 F4 is listed and this is a slightly bulkier lens (72mm filter thread). Im hoping it has just not been added yet as it hasn't been tested. I definitely like the idea of having a lighter cheaper version that sits between WWL and WACP-1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lens itself seems to be interesting. But I hope there are more lens options in the future. For Sony are only the "kit" lenses possible, I would like to see other compact zooms like the Sigma 28-70. Don't know if this Nauticam design is even capable to use quality zooms.

Share this post


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

The lens itself seems to be interesting. But I hope there are more lens options in the future. For Sony are only the "kit" lenses possible, I would like to see other compact zooms like the Sigma 28-70. Don't know if this Nauticam design is even capable to use quality zooms.

 @JYk - I own the WACP 1 and shoot it with the very old Nikon 28-70mm (f/3.5-4.5). The WACP 1 makes this lens shine... it's (fairly) quick and tack sharp (easily better than any dome port lens combination for my D850). My guess is that the same will be true for the kit lenses on a modern Sony body.

The port/lens combo makes all the difference.

My daughter shoots with a FF Sony - looking forward to trying this out next spring...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The lens itself seems to be interesting. But I hope there are more lens options in the future. For Sony are only the "kit" lenses possible, I would like to see other compact zooms like the Sigma 28-70. Don't know if this Nauticam design is even capable to use quality zooms.

Quality zooms don't seem to be necessary.  Old kit zooms like the Canon 28-70 out perform modern lenses like the latest 16-35 wide angle optics in a dome port. 

My understanding is that the WACP design has restrictions on entrance pupil size and position and it further ideally needs a lens that doesn't extend too much when zooming as it hits the inside of the WACP.  This rules out many modern zoom lenses.

there is already a design that allows use of modern wide angle zooms and that is the WACP-2 and a consequence of being able to use these modern lenses is the additional size and expense of the WACP-2 . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel tempted to get one of these WACP-C optics, but seem to recall a discussion here or perhaps on Wetpixel Live where Alex Mustard said he was not that impressed with the original WACP design (now embodied in the "c" version), and that led to the WACP-1.  A brief search for that was unsuccessful, and I may be remembering the comment incorrectly, but will continue searching for it.  maybe someone has a link handy.
I am sure the "C" performance is less impressive than the other models, but have no idea by how much, and I would be using it on a crop sensor. 

Why would you not use a Tokina or an 8-15mm fisheye instead on crop sensor?
It will contain the 130 degree field of view maybe not the narrow end if a wacp-2
After all those lenses are not rectilinear anyway


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:


Why would you not use a Tokina or an 8-15mm fisheye instead on crop sensor?
It will contain the 130 degree field of view maybe not the narrow end if a wacp-2
After all those lenses are not rectilinear anyway


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do use those.  The 8-15 is my most-often-used underwater lens.  There are times when I would like the ability to "zoom in" more than those provide or I want less fisheye distortion.  I do not know about the WACP-C, but in general, the other WACP optics give less of a fisheye effect, although perhaps not truly rectilinear.  The qualities of the WACP-2 are immaterial to me other than academic interest.  The likelihood of owning one of those is not much greater than the likelihood of owning the Hubble Space telescope.

The WACP would not replace a fisheye, it potentially replaces something like a 10-24, 16-35 or 17-70 (in Nikon terms) in a dome.  It is also not just about angle of view.  If it provides good results at a more open aperture, it may allow opportunities for faster shutter speeds, more control over depth of field, potentially faster flash recycling, possibly more flexibility for ambient light shots in shallower waters, etc.

Besides, it would be a new toy.  I like toys.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

To save time you can look at the post above by Alex, it seems clear that he expects the WACP-C will "out preform" WWL-1 and "be not quite as good as WACP-1" I think that this seems logical given the price point of each lens. 

Thanks Phil.  I saw that comment from Alex, but my curiosity forces me to want to find his earlier comments anyway. 

OK, I found it, so my OCD crisis is resolved.  FWIW, Alex described the lens now known as WACP-C as giving a 1-stop benefit over a dome port and the WACP-1 as producing a 2-stop advantage.  Nauticam is claiming much greater benefit.  So I guess the question, really is whether something like the WACP-C cost-benefit ratio makes sense, and to assess that, one probably needs to factor in the flexibility of the very wide zoom range, which is not useful in many situations but very useful in others.

Edited by Draq
Found the comments
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do use those.  The 8-15 is my most-often-used underwater lens.  There are times when I would like the ability to "zoom in" more than those provide or I want less fisheye distortion.  I do not know about the WACP-C, but in general, the other WACP optics give less of a fisheye effect, although perhaps not truly rectilinear.  The qualities of the WACP-2 are immaterial to me other than academic interest.  The likelihood of owning one of those is not much greater than the likelihood of owning the Hubble Space telescope.
The WACP would not replace a fisheye, it potentially replaces something like a 10-24, 16-35 or 17-70 (in Nikon terms) in a dome.  It is also not just about angle of view.  If it provides good results at a more open aperture, it may allow opportunities for faster shutter speeds, more control over depth of field, potentially faster flash recycling, possibly more flexibility for ambient light shots in shallower waters, etc.
Besides, it would be a new toy.  I like toys.
 

I use the canon 8-15 with my gh5 the distortion at 10mm is the same of the wwl-1
From what I can see a lot of emphasis is put on the edge sharpness for full frame but none of those optics are rectilinear
As you zoom a fisheye lens on cropped sensor distortion drops
It would be interesting to compare a zoom fisheye on crop with this wacp-c I doubt it would be much straighter
The biggest benefit of wet optics is reduced flash power ad aperture is wider
As the crop factor increases the benefit of wacp like solutions on that respect drops


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

Besides, it would be a new toy.  I like toys.

Finally, the true emerges.... :rofl:

(Count me in too)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Draq said:

I feel tempted to get one of these WACP-C optics, but seem to recall a discussion here or perhaps on Wetpixel Live where Alex Mustard said he was not that impressed with the original WACP design (now embodied in the "c" version), and that led to the WACP-1.  A brief search for that was unsuccessful, and I may be remembering the comment incorrectly, but will continue searching for it.  maybe someone has a link handy.

I am sure the "C" performance is less impressive than the other models, but have no idea by how much, and I would be using it on a crop sensor. 

Wetpixel Live is always recorded in a single take so it is possible that I might not have expressed myself as intended! 

My feeling was/is the first WACP prototype (that is now the basis for the WACP-C) was clearly better than a dome - but with Nauticam we did not feel it was better by enough to persuade a community that was, at the time, not used  to UW corrected optics that they offered a big enough advantage to convince people to buy into the idea (aware that our market at the time all had domes).

So it was decided to throw more glass and money at the problem (and Edward’s expertise) and create an optic that was a bigger step over a dome setup. The result was the WACP-1. More glass and more money will always give more performance. And the WACP-1 sold way, way better than Nauticam ever imagined. Its success also made it possible to make the bigger, more expensive WACP-2.

But (even when asked) I didn’t return the WACP prototype to Nauticam because I knew it was better than a dome and therefore super-useful for me. I tested the WACP-1 pre-production and wrote the big front page article on Wetpixel about it, but actually continued using the WACP-C type lens myself, as I was not first on the list for WACP-1s! 

I have continued to use the prototype (WACP-C) alongside the WACP-1 and have taken it on trips in preference to the WACP-1 sometimes (when weight was an issue and I was not expecting to use the lens that much). However, the more I got used the quality of the WACP-1, the less I have been using the prototype as I do notice the difference in quality - something that happens whenever we upgrade lenses - you know the feeling - we used to be happy with the old lens, then we buy the new one and suddenly, the old one that used to be great, no longer looks so great. 

As I have said before I think that the lenses fall into 4 pretty clear categories, with clear correlations and inverse correlations in performance, price, size and weight.

I have shot all 4. I returned my WWL to Nauticam as I just felt it would be gathering dust. Mainly use the WACP-1, sometimes the WACP-C (as a prototype) and have borrowed the WACP-2, but have no desire to own one. But I am really pleased that underwater photographers have such a choice and different folks will find their sweet spot at different points in the range.

Alex

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Alex_Mustard said:

Wetpixel Live is always recorded in a single take so it is possible that I might not have expressed myself as intended! 

My feeling was/is the first WACP prototype (that is now the basis for the WACP-C) was clearly better than a dome - but with Nauticam we did not feel it was better by enough to persuade a community that was, at the time, not used  to UW corrected optics that they offered a big enough advantage to convince people to buy into the idea (aware that our market at the time all had domes).

So it was decided to throw more glass and money at the problem (and Edward’s expertise) and create an optic that was a bigger step over a dome setup. The result was the WACP-1. More glass and more money will always give more performance. And the WACP-1 sold way, way better than Nauticam ever imagined. Its success also made it possible to make the bigger, more expensive WACP-2.

But (even when asked) I didn’t return the WACP prototype to Nauticam because I knew it was better than a dome and therefore super-useful for me. I tested the WACP-1 pre-production and wrote the big front page article on Wetpixel about it, but actually continued using the WACP-C type lens myself, as I was not first on the list for WACP-1s! 

I have continued to use the prototype (WACP-C) alongside the WACP-1 and have taken it on trips in preference to the WACP-1 sometimes (when weight was an issue and I was not expecting to use the lens that much). However, the more I got used the quality of the WACP-1, the less I have been using the prototype as I do notice the difference in quality - something that happens whenever we upgrade lenses - you know the feeling - we used to be happy with the old lens, then we buy the new one and suddenly, the old one that used to be great, no longer looks so great. 

As I have said before I think that the lenses fall into 4 pretty clear categories, with clear correlations and inverse correlations in performance, price, size and weight.

I have shot all 4. I returned my WWL to Nauticam as I just felt it would be gathering dust. Mainly use the WACP-1, sometimes the WACP-C (as a prototype) and have borrowed the WACP-2, but have no desire to own one. But I am really pleased that underwater photographers have such a choice and different folks will find their sweet spot at different points in the range.

Alex

 

Thanks for the clarification Alex.  Hope it did not seem I was misrepresenting your prior comments.  I am pleased to see nauticam offering the "C" option.  I seriously considered the "1" to the extent of measuring my bags and weighing gear and picking up a suitable lens when I found one at a good price, but finally concluded that for me, and the aircraft rules I have to deal with, it was too large and too heavy, so the "C" now looks tempting.

Share this post


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

Thanks for the clarification Alex.  Hope it did not seem I was misrepresenting your prior comments.  I am pleased to see nauticam offering the "C" option.  I seriously considered the "1" to the extent of measuring my bags and weighing gear and picking up a suitable lens when I found one at a good price, but finally concluded that for me, and the aircraft rules I have to deal with, it was too large and too heavy, so the "C" now looks tempting.

As an owner of a WACP-1, your comment on travel restrictions hits very close to home.

I usually only take the WACP-1 on liveaboards, or where I'm planning on shooting primarily w/a, and where the travel is fairly direct (2 flights or less). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Draq said:

The likelihood of owning one of those is not much greater than the likelihood of owning the Hubble Space telescope.

The hubble would be hard to travel with, and might not focus close enough.

 

This is a very exciting announcement!! I have contemplated the WACP-1 for a while but found it too heavy/big.

The ability for Sony's full frames to use the WWL1 "instead" (though image quality wouldn't be as good, as Alex pointed) makes me consider a move away from Nikon to Sony... Gives me confusing dreams...

So a mini-WACP-1 sounds great, except it doesn't seem suited to Nikon FX DSLRs (whereas the Canon DSLR people can use their 28-70 and enjoy the full 130-59 degrees range).  

I am hoping Nauticam might do more testing and find a Nikon FX lens that can make give access to a 130-50 degrees range at least, then this would an attractive option for my D810 :good:

The Nikon DX 18-55mm looks to work well though, and it has VR, a great option for a Nikon DX DSLR... so perhaps my D500 would get a new toy... 

But I think I would get more bang for my bucks, image quality-wise, by using an expensive wet lens on the D810 than D500.

 

Anyways, great that Nauticam keeps releasing new wet lenses!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2022 at 9:55 AM, Glasshouse said:

I'll check with Nauticam to see if we can get some clarity. The reason I wanted to check is that the 24-70 F4 is listed and this is a slightly bulkier lens (72mm filter thread). Im hoping it has just not been added yet as it hasn't been tested. I definitely like the idea of having a lighter cheaper version that sits between WWL and WACP-1.

Were you able to get any clarification from Nauticam?

Share this post


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

The hubble would be hard to travel with, and might not focus close enough.

 

This is a very exciting announcement!! I have contemplated the WACP-1 for a while but found it too heavy/big.

The ability for Sony's full frames to use the WWL1 "instead" (though image quality wouldn't be as good, as Alex pointed) makes me consider a move away from Nikon to Sony... Gives me confusing dreams...

So a mini-WACP-1 sounds great, except it doesn't seem suited to Nikon FX DSLRs (whereas the Canon DSLR people can use their 28-70 and enjoy the full 130-59 degrees range).  

I am hoping Nauticam might do more testing and find a Nikon FX lens that can make give access to a 130-50 degrees range at least, then this would an attractive option for my D810 :good:

The Nikon DX 18-55mm looks to work well though, and it has VR, a great option for a Nikon DX DSLR... so perhaps my D500 would get a new toy... 

But I think I would get more bang for my bucks, image quality-wise, by using an expensive wet lens on the D810 than D500.

 

Anyways, great that Nauticam keeps releasing new wet lenses!

Well there's someone posted just recently who is going to try an adapted Sony 28-60 behind a WWL on a Nikon Z camera. 

It appears the Nikon lens that gives full range with the WACP-1 needs to be zoomed in to work with the WACP so losing field of view - this does appear rather odd as other 28mm lenses will give a full field without any problem. 

The Nikon 28-70 lens extends about 20mm or so at the widest end,  so possibly it is hitting the back of the WACP , so maybe a 10mm extension tube would allow you to get wider?  It would be worth asking as this is what appears to be the problem.  See here:

https://www.opticallimits.com/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/240-nikkor-af-28-70mm-f35-45d-review--test-report

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still on the fence for this lens. Its "cheaper" than the others. But why should we use this one if we can use a dome port or a even more cheaper wetlens instead?
I'll wait for some samples but the distortion seems to be on the high end, so I might get a domeport instead. It also said no focus on air, so I can asume no split pictures are possible?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still on the fence for this lens. Its "cheaper" than the others. But why should we use this one if we can use a dome port or a even more cheaper wetlens instead?

I'll wait for some samples but the distortion seems to be on the high end, so I might get a domeport instead. It also said no focus on air, so I can asume no split pictures are possible?

There are no zoom fisheye for full frame cameras.

So you are stuck with a rectilinear lens that has edge issues and gets you to 120 degrees or you can invest in WACP-1 or WACP-C and in some cases WWL-1 or WWL-C

All those lenses have a 0.36x magnification and are not rectilinear they are not a replacement to a rectilinear lens despite the statements about edges because they are distorted

The alternative to a rectilinear lens for a full frame user is the WACP-2 which has a magnification of 0.57x and is less distorted. Can you use it for split shots? No because is super heavy

Nauticam has done a great job to offer options for all formats with water contact optics that all deliver great quality however none of them is a one stop shop unless you shoot video.

You still need a fisheye lens and if you want straight lines a rectilinear lens with a dome

Cropped sensor users have options for zoom fisheye so none of those optics are unique and the edge benefit is also reduced

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nicool said:

The hubble would be hard to travel with, and might not focus close enough.

 

This is a very exciting announcement!! I have contemplated the WACP-1 for a while but found it too heavy/big.

The ability for Sony's full frames to use the WWL1 "instead" (though image quality wouldn't be as good, as Alex pointed) makes me consider a move away from Nikon to Sony... Gives me confusing dreams...

So a mini-WACP-1 sounds great, except it doesn't seem suited to Nikon FX DSLRs (whereas the Canon DSLR people can use their 28-70 and enjoy the full 130-59 degrees range).  

I am hoping Nauticam might do more testing and find a Nikon FX lens that can make give access to a 130-50 degrees range at least, then this would an attractive option for my D810 :good:

The Nikon DX 18-55mm looks to work well though, and it has VR, a great option for a Nikon DX DSLR... so perhaps my D500 would get a new toy... 

But I think I would get more bang for my bucks, image quality-wise, by using an expensive wet lens on the D810 than D500.

 

Anyways, great that Nauticam keeps releasing new wet lenses!

I shoot the Nikon 28-70 on my D850 w/the WACP-1... I initially had serious doubts about the lens as well...

Other than the slightly less converted FOV (not quite as wide as you might want), the lens/wet lens combo is really (really) good. Easily better than any dome port you might use w/a rectilinear lens on a FF Nikon.

I'm definitely interested, given the slightly better travel size.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

...

All those lenses have a 0.36x magnification and are not rectilinear they are not a replacement to a rectilinear lens despite the statements about edges because they are distorted

...

You still need a fisheye lens and if you want straight lines a rectilinear lens with a dome

In this case I will blame Nauticams Marketing team to say things like "captures images with minimal distortion". I know "minimal" is a broad term but for people like me, I would think this one comes close to a rectilinear lens as it gets. But good to know that these are the optical limits. It's still a shame that we don't have in deepth reviews because nobody got time or money for this. But this is the price of this small and expansive hobby I think. 
 

Thanks to clarify this point @Interceptor121.

Edited by JYk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JYk said:

In this case I will blame Nauticams Marketing team to say things like "captures images with minimal distortion". I know "minimal" is a broad term but for people like me, I would think this one comes close to a rectilinear lens as it gets. But good to know that these are the optical limits. It's still a shame that we don't have in deepth reviews because nobody got time or money for this. But this is the price of this small and expansive hobby I think. 
 

Thanks to clarify this point @Interceptor121.

This is an old article I wrote with regards to the WWL-1. Nobody had taken the time to shoot a few straight lines at close range so I did it

https://interceptor121.com/2019/05/12/nauticam-wwl-1the-best-wide-angle-lens-for-underwater-video-on-the-gh5-and-other-micro-four-thirds/

This optic has the same 0.36x magnification of all the others. As you can see as you zoom the distortion drops however this is happens with any fisheye zoom

My point is that I do not see how another lens can achieve 0.36x and be more rectilinear so my assumption is that it is not.

Looking at underwater images of reefs is not a way to evaluate if a lens is straight or not and neither are far shots of a pool.

When you look at the port charts I think it is evident that the WACP-2 is an alternative to a 250mm dome for all formats however the argument that this is a lighter solution does not stand as the wet optics is similar size and much heavier on land to carry around.

For what concerns the WACP-1 or WWL-1 on APSC and MFT they accomplish something you can already do with other fixed optics again what is the quality benefit to a fisheye zoom it remains to be seen. My images with the canon 8-15mm are sharper than the WWL-1 for example

So at the end of the day the WACP range fills a gap in the full frame world that does not have a zoom fisheye and potentially also improves your rectilinear shots with a semi-rectilinear lens WACP-2 but this is about ultimate quality

If I was a full frame user that had to step from a fisheye all the way to a rectilinear lens there is no doubt that this WACP-C is a great addition that fills a gap however as a cropped sensor user there is limited benefit to this as I already have choice of zoom fisheye and wet lenses that cover the same focal range at decent quality.

I am on MFT my rectilinear shots are more than adequate to what I need and I use a 180mm dome which is not small but is 1.34 kg I can still pull the lens if I need to take a split shot. Am I bothered about the extreme edges? Not really

ras-katy-tip-20220805.jpg

 

 

 

 

steering-wheel-truck-20220803.jpg

The question is if I had decided to make a jump to full frame to get the best quality then I would also subscribe to the WACP line because the alternatives are not as good. The WACP-C offers a good compromise here as the rectilinear choices are not as wide however it is not a substitute to a rectilinear lens as it just is not straight. In addition this lens is compatible with many more mirrorless cameras that so far were not supported. I instead entirely not convinced that any of the WACP are really a strong proposition for cropped sensors

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

The actual close up examples are less sharp than my Panasonic 8-18mm with dome port in the edges. WACPClose.thumb.PNG.55e1a6f6ff32bc70e157d5a8ef7e9ccd.PNG

Compare the third shot from the bottom which is the only one where the corners are not dark

 

With this shot on a rectilinear lens on my GH5M2 at f/8 with Nauticam 180mm dome port the image is not cropped

wrapping-cloth-20220802.jpg

Edited by Interceptor121
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we need the aperture data to make any kind of meaningful comparison?

CFWA is also by definition tougher in DOF terms. As everything is much closer to the camera. 

I also don't think it is useful to compare wet lenses like WWL with WACP. They are different beasts entirely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...