Jump to content
dreifish

Nauticam WACP-C

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, JYk said:

Interesting discussion. Do we have any good data regarding the WWL-1 and the WACP-C in comparison? Question is if the price to performance ratio could be in favor for the WWL-1 or maybe both of them perform equal and you're hard to find any difference in pictures of both systems?

The best you will get is this post from Nauticam Thailand with comparison shots at various apertures:

https://www.facebook.com/NauticamThailand/posts/pfbid02Rx7a3XcKJzRSHnjVT9bx5G7XPVNBmVY1GpuxP24QNRqHCAAKpC6c4hbvWWYwvzn7l

There are also posts with Canon and Nikon lenses around the same date.scroll down to Oct 20 to find the first post.  Facebook for some reason won't provide a permanent link to the post.  Just look at the WACP-C and WWL on the same lens and don't worry about if lens A might be 2% better than lens B, most of the difference is between the WACP and WWL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw these pictures, but these are not up the quality so I can make a good assessment of the image quality. Raw-files would be the gold standard but here I only have some low-res jpg. From just this picture, I would assume the WAP-C is not worth the 33% price increase against the WWL-1. But as I said, I can't see the full details. 
 

Share this post


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

I saw these pictures, but these are not up the quality so I can make a good assessment of the image quality. Raw-files would be the gold standard but here I only have some low-res jpg. From just this picture, I would assume the WAP-C is not worth the 33% price increase against the WWL-1. But as I said, I can't see the full details. 
 

The corner 100% crops they provide are as good as you'll find for a comparison  I would think and show how the corner sharpness varies between the ports - the assumption of course is that the centre performance of all shots is equivalent.  The improvement in the corners seems best at f8 comparing the WACP-C and WWL-1 at f11  they are closer. 

You could comment on the post asking if it was possible to download full res shots from somewhere even a full resolution jpeg would be adequate for sharpness comparisons.

Share this post


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

The corner 100% crops they provide are as good as you'll find for a comparison  I would think and show how the corner sharpness varies between the ports - the assumption of course is that the centre performance of all shots is equivalent.  The improvement in the corners seems best at f8 comparing the WACP-C and WWL-1 at f11  they are closer. 

You could comment on the post asking if it was possible to download full res shots from somewhere even a full resolution jpeg would be adequate for sharpness comparisons.

Thanks, the link is interesting, stuff for discussion...:good:

The rating, still, probably depends on the person. When I look at the central region of the "left, lower corners" (the extreme corners may be too variable, depending on slight differences in positioning of the different rigs), my subjective impression is:

 

f 4.0:   WACP-1>>WACP-C>WWL-1>230 domeport

f 8.0:   WACP-1>>WACP-C>=WWL-1>230 domeport

f 11.0:   WACP-1>>WWL-1>=WACP-C>=230 domeport

>>: clearly better

>: slightly better

>=: slightly better or equal

 

Do the others agree or is the perception different?

 

Wolfgang

 

P.S.: I guess it is not necessary to say that the differences are small, anyhow, and a good photo will remain a good photo, regardless the WACP/domeport with wich it was taken?

Edited by Architeuthis

Share this post


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

Thanks, the link is interesting, stuff for discussion...:good:

The rating, still, probably depends on the person. When I look at the central region of the "left, lower corners" (the extreme corners may be too variable, depending on slight differences in positioning of the different rigs), my subjective impression is:

 

f 4.0:   WACP-1>>WACP-C>WWL-1>230 domeport

f 8.0:   WACP-1>>WACP-C>=WWL-1>230 domeport

f 11.0:   WACP-1>>WWL-1>=WACP-C>=230 domeport

>>: clearly better

>: slightly better

>=: slightly better or equal

 

Do the others agree or is the perception different?

 

Wolfgang

 

P.S.: I guess it is not necessary to say that the differences are small, anyhow, and a good photo will remain a good photo, regardless the WACP/domeport with wich it was taken?

Appreciate the effort and hope this does not seem unduly negative, but I would say that it is hard to be very confident from the image quality provided and "clearly" vs "slightly" vs "slightly or equal" are very subjective.  At least some differences could just as easily exist between different computer monitors and monitor settings.  Also, unless all we are interested in is which optic works best with a specific camera and lens model, I think the differences could vary greatly  depending on camera, lens model, the individual lens within model, subject shape and size, water quality and lighting.  Format size and focal length could also make a difference because of resolution and depth of field.  Can one really extrapolate these results to a M43 camera and lens?

Notably, Nauticam itself and the people who have used these products pretty consistently say WACP-1 is better than WACP-C, which is better than WWL-1, and that all are better than a dome, even assuming the right type of dome and a properly positioned lens, so I am unsure how far this get us.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Appreciate the effort and hope this does not seem unduly negative, but I would say that it is hard to be very confident from the image quality provided and "clearly" vs "slightly" vs "slightly or equal" are very subjective.  At least some differences could just as easily exist between different computer monitors and monitor settings.  Also, unless all we are interested in is which optic works best with a specific camera and lens model, I think the differences could vary greatly  depending on camera, lens model, the individual lens within model, subject shape and size, water quality and lighting.  Format size and focal length could also make a difference because of resolution and depth of field.  Can one really extrapolate these results to a M43 camera and lens?
Notably, Nauticam itself and the people who have used these products pretty consistently say WACP-1 is better than WACP-C, which is better than WWL-1, and that all are better than a dome, even assuming the right type of dome and a properly positioned lens, so I am unsure how far this get us.
 
 
 

Those kind of comparisons are not possible across systems as the master lens changes
The only reliable test is on Sony that uses the 28-60 for all adapters
I have seen a test made in Germany where WACP-1 is compares to WWL-1 on the same lens and then on 230 dome with 12-24
Those results indicate a gap between the wwl-1 and wacp of 2/3 of a stop. Not only the 12-24 is identical to the wwl-1 and rectilinear
In my opinion the construction of those 3 adapters is the same the optical elements are identical what changes is
Size
Mount
My take is as follows as foreword I have used the WWL-1 for years so for my A1 I will start from there and the reason is
1. WWL-1 shots for me are wide angle not cfwa and corners don’t matter that much
2. Weight matters I do also diving from ribs buses and walk sometimes with my rig for 1 km my set up with strobes is border line with video lights is heavy
3. Lot of corners issue go away with aspect ratio on MFT I shoot f5.6 and the corners are deeper. On 3:2 there is limited corner issue on 16:9 zero issue
4. I have already experienced that my rectilinear mft 8-18 is pretty much the same of the wwl1 but I have one stop penalty

If this proves to be the wrong choice for the A1 and looking at Shane Smith shots I doubt it I will reconsider

I don’t believe the dry mount benefit is as big as people make it but I do think the lens can be positioned better when you dont have a flat port so it is possible that the wacp are wider

I have seen several divers with WACP-1 un capable of independent water entry and exit and I am not going to be part of that group

And finally canon nikon and Panasonic full frame don’t have a wwl-1 option this is only a sony problem

So in conclusion I am aligned with Phil practical considerations matter more than pixel peeping in the corners


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


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

Appreciate the effort and hope this does not seem unduly negative, but I would say that it is hard to be very confident from the image quality provided and "clearly" vs "slightly" vs "slightly or equal" are very subjective.  At least some differences could just as easily exist between different computer monitors and monitor settings.  Also, unless all we are interested in is which optic works best with a specific camera and lens model, I think the differences could vary greatly  depending on camera, lens model, the individual lens within model, subject shape and size, water quality and lighting.  Format size and focal length could also make a difference because of resolution and depth of field.  Can one really extrapolate these results to a M43 camera and lens?

Notably, Nauticam itself and the people who have used these products pretty consistently say WACP-1 is better than WACP-C, which is better than WWL-1, and that all are better than a dome, even assuming the right type of dome and a properly positioned lens, so I am unsure how far this get us.

 

 

 

Hi Draq,

I fear I have expressed myself unclear and this is a misunderstanding: With the rating I mean the image series that was linked by Chris from Nauticam in Thailand. Here is the link again: https://www.facebook.com/NauticamThailand/posts/pfbid02Rx7a3XcKJzRSHnjVT9bx5G7XPVNBmVY1GpuxP24QNRqHCAAKpC6c4hbvWWYwvzn7l

The images were taken all with the same Sony A1, 28-60mm lens and WWL-1, WACP-C, WACP-1 and a 230 domeport (with rectilinear WA lens). It is an image series similar to the one to which Massimo refers (but WACP-C is included). There are magnifications of the lower, left, corner at f 4.0, f 8.0 and f 11.0, that allow comparison of corner sharpness with any monitor, even at the resolution that is provided (o.k., maybe one should not rate the images on a handy screen, but any notebook should be good enough)...

When I understood Chris correctly, he says the most difference is between WACPs (also WACP-C?) and WWL-1. My perception is a little bit different (as I wrote) and I am interested to hear what Chris and also others say to the images...

 

Wolfgang

 

 

Share this post


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

Hi Draq,

I fear I have expressed myself unclear and this is a misunderstanding: With the rating I mean the image series that was linked by Chris from Nauticam in Thailand. Here is the link again: https://www.facebook.com/NauticamThailand/posts/pfbid02Rx7a3XcKJzRSHnjVT9bx5G7XPVNBmVY1GpuxP24QNRqHCAAKpC6c4hbvWWYwvzn7l

The images were taken all with the same Sony A1, 28-60mm lens and WWL-1, WACP-C, WACP-1 and a 230 domeport (with rectilinear WA lens). It is an image series similar to the one to which Massimo refers (but WACP-C is included). There are magnifications of the lower, left, corner at f 4.0, f 8.0 and f 11.0, that allow comparison of corner sharpness with any monitor, even at the resolution that is provided (o.k., maybe one should not rate the images on a handy screen, but any notebook should be good enough)...

When I understood Chris correctly, he says the most difference is between WACPs (also WACP-C?) and WWL-1. My perception is a little bit different (as I wrote) and I am interested to hear what Chris and also others say to the images...

 

Wolfgang

 

 

The Sony photo series shows several things, first is that all three Nauticam optics are better than a 230mm dome, particularly so at f4 and f8.  With the WACP you might consider using f4, the others likely not unless the corners are quite empty.

at f8 the WACP-1 is clearly better, the sharper areas are one row of tiles - more or less - further out than the WACP-C.  The WWL-1 only starts to really sharpen up towards the top corner of frame.

at f11 the WWL seems similar to the WACP-C at f8.  The WWL-1 improves by about 1 row of tiles between f8 and f11. 

It is rather hard to compare them on screen - you kind of need to cut the images of each port you are interested in into cards so you can place them side by side rather than flicking between f8 an 11 and back.  For example you might want to compare WWL at f11with WACP-C at f8.  But complaining about the quality of the images presented won't do you any good as at the moment it's as good as you will find anywhere.

I would say the best description for the optics in these ports/lenses is that they are similar.  The WWL (both 1 and C)  is reported to have 4 elements while the WACP-1 and C both have 6 elements in 5 groups.  The WACP-2 has 4 elements.   If lens layouts were published like they are for camera lenses they would likely look to have the same design concept, but different sizes, curvatures and spacings.  So similar but not the same

Trying to add in a comparison between different lenses behind the ports adds another order of magnitude of complexity and besides the data is not there and you can drive yourself insane with comparisons.  Better I think to compare the choices you have available to you and decide if the the WWL/WACP-C/WACP-1 in the wet lens of choice for you and use the lens that is recommended in the port charts withe wet lens you decide upon.

The only possibility missing I think is the potential of using the converted Sony 28-60 with a Nikon mirrorless and the WWL.  Logically that should work if the adapted 28-60 works well enough on the camera as far as AF and other functions as effectively all you are doing is placing a different sensor at the focus of the combined optics - provided you can find a flat port in the N120 system of the right length to prevent vignetting and the this can be checked in the shop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Draq,

I fear I have expressed myself unclear and this is a misunderstanding: With the rating I mean the image series that was linked by Chris from Nauticam in Thailand. Here is the link again: https://www.facebook.com/NauticamThailand/posts/pfbid02Rx7a3XcKJzRSHnjVT9bx5G7XPVNBmVY1GpuxP24QNRqHCAAKpC6c4hbvWWYwvzn7l

The images were taken all with the same Sony A1, 28-60mm lens and WWL-1, WACP-C, WACP-1 and a 230 domeport (with rectilinear WA lens). It is an image series similar to the one to which Massimo refers (but WACP-C is included). There are magnifications of the lower, left, corner at f 4.0, f 8.0 and f 11.0, that allow comparison of corner sharpness with any monitor, even at the resolution that is provided (o.k., maybe one should not rate the images on a handy screen, but any notebook should be good enough)...

When I understood Chris correctly, he says the most difference is between WACPs (also WACP-C?) and WWL-1. My perception is a little bit different (as I wrote) and I am interested to hear what Chris and also others say to the images...

 

Wolfgang

 

 

Facebook images are 2048 wide considering majority of photography competitions are 1600x1200 i would argue this is sufficient to evaluate

And the conclusion from those examples is that there’s not much difference between all of them the WACP-1 is the best but if you were a WWL1 user you would not be rushing for a WACP-C upgrade

In effect it doesn’t seem much of an upgrade

Also consider those are close shots those lenses are NOT for close shots they don’t replace a fisheye

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:
The Sony photo series shows several things, first is that all three Nauticam optics are better than a 230mm dome, particularly so at f4 and f8.  With the WACP you might consider using f4, the others likely not unless the corners are quite empty. at f8 the WACP-1 is clearly better, the sharper areas are one row of tiles - more or less - further out than the WACP-C.  The WWL-1 only starts to really sharpen up towards the top corner of frame.

at f11 the WWL seems similar to the WACP-C at f8.  The WWL-1 improves by about 1 row of tiles between f8 and f11. 

It is rather hard to compare them on screen - you kind of need to cut the images of each port you are interested in into cards so you can place them side by side rather than flicking between f8 an 11 and back.  For example you might want to compare WWL at f11with WACP-C at f8.  But complaining about the quality of the images presented won't do you any good as at the moment it's as good as you will find anywhere.

I would say the best description for the optics in these ports/lenses is that they are similar.  The WWL (both 1 and C)  is reported to have 4 elements while the WACP-1 and C both have 6 elements in 5 groups.  The WACP-2 has 4 elements.   If lens layouts were published like they are for camera lenses they would likely look to have the same design concept, but different sizes, curvatures and spacings.  So similar but not the same

Trying to add in a comparison between different lenses behind the ports adds another order of magnitude of complexity and besides the data is not there and you can drive yourself insane with comparisons.  Better I think to compare the choices you have available to you and decide if the the WWL/WACP-C/WACP-1 in the wet lens of choice for you and use the lens that is recommended in the port charts withe wet lens you decide upon.

The only possibility missing I think is the potential of using the converted Sony 28-60 with a Nikon mirrorless and the WWL.  Logically that should work if the adapted 28-60 works well enough on the camera as far as AF and other functions as effectively all you are doing is placing a different sensor at the focus of the combined optics - provided you can find a flat port in the N120 system of the right length to prevent vignetting and the this can be checked in the shop.

 

The wwl-1 has exactly the same elements and group of wacp

You can read it from the specs

d939a44bf10dd1aebf462a309d2e7ad8.jpg

 

In essence Nauticam could not use the www-1 with anything else than the sony 28/2 at time the wwl-1 was released as the 28-60 didn’t exist

So the wacp are simply larger lenses to accommodate master lenses with larger sizes and have a dry mount because no flat port accommodate the zoom

In fact as the diameter of the WACP-C is essentially the same of the WWL-1 just few mm more this proves that the benefit of the dry mount is modest still there but not night and day.

What this test shows is that to get a significant improvement you need to double the size of the wet optic and get a larger diameter

In tests done with a resolution chart the gap between those is less than it shows here where there is an issue of depth of field due to the shape of the pool tiles and the fact the test is done on an edge so top and bottom show different views

But more important those are not the shots you take with that lens

For most you are shooting a wet optic at 1 meter plus not one foot

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by Interceptor121
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I pulled my specs from Backscatters page as I had the site open, Nauticam has the the specs you quote.  The WWL-C however does 4 elements.   Just because they have the same number of elements and groups doesn't mean that all that is changed is the diameter, the thickness and spacings can also change.  Most of the weight in these will be due the glass and the WWL is 1.35kg while the WACP-C is 2.24kg, so the specs indicate a reasonably large increase in the weight of glass in the optic, probably a bit more than you would expect just from the diameter change.  But in the end does it matter if only the diameter changes does it matter? 

The depth of field will of course have the potential to change the corner sharpness, but I would suggest that for the WWL/WACP optics at least the magnification is the same so the depth of field will be the same for all of them.  Of course some of the improvement from f4 to f8 to f11 could be down to depth of field but we don't have a set of shots of a flat resolution chart to compare to. 

How much of a problem depth of field is for the corners will depend on the shape of the object plane - for rectilinears this is a parallel plane of varying thickness (which is why dome ports have soft corners due to the curved virtual image of course) .  Fisheyes clearly do not have a parallel object plane - if they did the corners would have to be at infinity to be seen.  I would expect the WWL/WACP to behave more like fisheyes in this regard and this is how they improve performance compared to rectilinear lenses I would think.

I would also suggest that it is a stretch to claim most people shoot WWL/WACP at 1 meter when by design they focus on the dome - it seems to be a natural for extending CFWA shots to smaller subjects to get them larger in the frame.  While it is not a substitute for a fisheye for reef scenics it is perfectly capable of producing such shots. 

In the end though these shots are what we have available to compare performance, a continual complaint is lack of availability of reasonable res shots to compare performance of some of these optics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, I pulled my specs from Backscatters page as I had the site open, Nauticam has the the specs you quote.  The WWL-C however does 4 elements.   Just because they have the same number of elements and groups doesn't mean that all that is changed is the diameter, the thickness and spacings can also change.  Most of the weight in these will be due the glass and the WWL is 1.35kg while the WACP-C is 2.24kg, so the specs indicate a reasonably large increase in the weight of glass in the optic, probably a bit more than you would expect just from the diameter change.  But in the end does it matter if only the diameter changes does it matter? 
The depth of field will of course have the potential to change the corner sharpness, but I would suggest that for the WWL/WACP optics at least the magnification is the same so the depth of field will be the same for all of them.  Of course some of the improvement from f4 to f8 to f11 could be down to depth of field but we don't have a set of shots of a flat resolution chart to compare to. 
How much of a problem depth of field is for the corners will depend on the shape of the object plane - for rectilinears this is a parallel plane of varying thickness (which is why dome ports have soft corners due to the curved virtual image of course) .  Fisheyes clearly do not have a parallel object plane - if they did the corners would have to be at infinity to be seen.  I would expect the WWL/WACP to behave more like fisheyes in this regard and this is how they improve performance compared to rectilinear lenses I would think.
I would also suggest that it is a stretch to claim most people shoot WWL/WACP at 1 meter when by design they focus on the dome - it seems to be a natural for extending CFWA shots to smaller subjects to get them larger in the frame.  While it is not a substitute for a fisheye for reef scenics it is perfectly capable of producing such shots. 
In the end though these shots are what we have available to compare performance, a continual complaint is lack of availability of reasonable res shots to compare performance of some of these optics.

I could not agree more what is needed is someone to go in a pool and run some tests that are repeatable and meaningful

I also agree once you have the lens you will use it for whatever you find but when you look at testing this should not be done at 1 foot more 1 meter or more


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

Share this post


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


I could not agree more what is needed is someone to go in a pool and run some tests that are repeatable and meaningful

I also agree once you have the lens you will use it for whatever you find but when you look at testing this should not be done at 1 foot more 1 meter or more


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Second this. 
So we just need someone with time, a good pool, test chart and objects and a lot of money to get all the gear ;). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Second this. 
So we just need someone with time, a good pool, test chart and objects and a lot of money to get all the gear ;)

Nauticam should manage that instead of leaving it to end users


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more a fan of a independent review of a third party with no close alignment to the vendor. People like brand ambassadors are to close to related to the company and won't be able to present all good and bad points...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'm more a fan of a independent review of a third party with no close alignment to the vendor. People like brand ambassadors are to close to related to the company and won't be able to present all good and bad points...

Yet companies provide MFT and technical data for lenses so if the test is objective this is not an issue

Without the support of Nauticam or a shop this test cannot happen. There is no rental on this stuff normally and if there is it is expensive. I cannot think why anybody would fork it

Nauticam has got 3 products there it would help if they would do those test and share them with the public so we don't have to entertain ourselves with theory and conjuctures

I guess once you have a test there is still a decision from the consumer of which product is right for them. Not everyone would go for the best but it helps to know the definition

Otherwise we will continue with our subjective evaluations which are also fine as many people consider budget or weight as priority over IQ

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all Nauticam tests a wide verity of lenses and then makes recommendations on the port charts for lens/wet lens combinations. 

In the Thai tests and I appreciate how time consuming these tests are because I have been doing them for years the lenses tested for Canon and Nikon do not appear to be those recommended for the Z and R cameras on the Nauticam chart. The only tests with the Nauticam recommended lenses are for Sony A1. In addition the Nikon Z-6 is a 24MP camera while the Canon R5 and Sony A-1 have twice the MP's at 45 and 50, higher MP's highlight more flaws in lenses. 

Next is the difference between shooting from behind a flat port or having the front element be water contact with no water between the camera and the front element. If you have water on both sides of the lens I don't think it makes a difference if it is 1mm of water or 24mm of water the same physics apply to both, which means a reduction in the FOV of the lens. If I am correct about this then the design of WWL-1B and WWL-C can not be identical to the WACP-1 or WACP-C if they all are 130 degree on the wide end.

Because I have extensively tested all of these lenses my conclusion regarding WWL-1B is that on Sony full frame with FE 28-60mm the A7C and A7 IV at 24MP will yield more acceptable  results than say the A-1 or A7 IV/V at 50 and 61MP's. For high MP Full Frame cameras the WACP line is just the better choice when paired with the lenses recommended by Nauticam.

For those using sub-full frame cameras a better comparison would be the WWL-1B V. a lens like the AOI UWL-09 I have  tested both  with M43 and both are excellent for small sensors. . 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

First of all Nauticam tests a wide verity of lenses and then makes recommendations on the port charts for lens/wet lens combinations. 

In the Thai tests and I appreciate how time consuming these tests are because I have been doing them for years the lenses tested for Canon and Nikon do not appear to be those recommended for the Z and R cameras on the Nauticam chart. The only tests with the Nauticam recommended lenses are for Sony A1. In addition the Nikon Z-6 is a 24MP camera while the Canon R5 and Sony A-1 have twice the MP's at 45 and 50, higher MP's highlight more flaws in lenses. 

Next is the difference between shooting from behind a flat port or having the front element be water contact with no water between the camera and the front element. If you have water on both sides of the lens I don't think it makes a difference if it is 1mm of water or 24mm of water the same physics apply to both, which means a reduction in the FOV of the lens. If I am correct about this then the design of WWL-1B and WWL-C can not be identical to the WACP-1 or WACP-C if they all are 130 degree on the wide end.

 

I have no doubt Nauticam tests all of these, the issue is comparative tests that people would like to see to help with deciding which particular optic to purchase, getting onto the port chart just means that an acceptable standard has been achieved.

On the tests I had a look at the current Nauticam WACP-C and WACP-1 port charts and I can see that the 28mm f1.8 is listed for F mount and the 24-70 is listed for Z mount. 

You only have to look at the weight of the lenses to see that there is a lot more glass there  in the WACP compared to the WWL.  The weights of WWL/WACP-C/WACP-1 are 1.35/2.24/3.9 kg  Glass makes up most of this I would think a qiuck back of the envelope calculation shows it's more than you expect from just diameter change.  They will quite likely have similar looking sets of elements, but thicknesses, curvatures and spacing will vary.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A point I would make in all this is that despite their price, their complexity and parts mean that I am sure Nauticam makes far more profit selling you domes than they do selling these water corrected optics. The WWL-WACP family (and whatever comes in the future) were invented to increase capabilities and help photographers. We are very lucky there are such options and choices, from dome ports, to WWLs, to WACPs to suit different applications, different systems, different budgets and different baggage allowances.

Nauticam understand their lenses better than any of us. They designed them from a blank piece of paper, tested, refined and built them. And quite simply two factors give a very clear indication on their relative performances - first PRICE and as a second factor WEIGHT! Both of these are a good measure of the amount of development, elements, size of glass and if any special lens elements/materials were used to ever improve optics.

The original WWL was designed first. What was learned from this led to the WACP-C (although it was not released until now). Then what was learned from that led to the WACP-1. And then the WACP-2. Each generation has more knowledge and also gets bigger, heavier, better optically and more expensive!

The reason this discussion goes round in circles is that people have different cameras, different goals, different budgets, different baggage allowances and different levels of acceptable image quality for that user. So no one lens can be best for everyone. In fact, the range is on sale because Nauticam knows this. The WACP-2 is the best optically, but I typically favour the WACP-1 because its cost/size suit my requirements more. I know many, many people who have these lenses, but they have all happily settled at different levels, from WWL to WACP-2. I accept that the downside of choice is that it makes it difficult for the consumer to decide - but I’d much rather have the choice. And I think while test charts are valuable, I would ask people who shoot similar systems to you and have tried them for advice, and judge from real world pictures. The WACP-C does seem to hit a sweet spot for many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone used the WACP-C with the Nikon 28-70 F/3.5-4.5 + D850/Nauticam? The lens is listed in the port chart as having a reduced zoom range (34-70)  over the WACP-1 when used with a 35 mm N120 to N100 35mm Port Adaptor that Nauticam recommends. I would hate to loose 13 degrees on the low end. I was hoping this issue can be fixed with a slightly longer extension. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I can shed some light on this issue. When Alex Mustard first commented in this thread he described a WACP-C like lens he has been using for several years that was a prototype for what is now call the WACP-1. If I understand correctly and Alex can correct me if I am wrong, he was able to use the Nikon 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5 with full zoom through. 

I have both lenses in house at the moment and made some quick measurements today. The rear element of the production WACP-1 is 73mm (give or take a MM) while the production WACP-C has a rear element that is 58mm (give or take). The approximately 15mm difference explained why the 28-70 is losing AOV over the WACP-1 and apparently Alex's prototype. I suspect that Alex prototype lens may have a larger rear element than the production version WACP-C. 

The Nikon lens has a 55mm filter thread while the Sony 28-60mm has a 40.5mm filter thread size which I believe makes it too large to work with WACP-C on Nikon DSLR cameras. On Nikon Z-cameras the adapted older Sony FE 28-70mm with 55mm filter thread gives full zoom through unlike the Z 24-70mm F/4s.   

Edited by Phil Rudin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Phil Rudin said:

I think I can shed some light on this issue. When Alex Mustard first commented in this thread he described a WACP-C like lens he has been using for several years that was a prototype for what is now call the WACP-1. If I understand correctly and Alex can correct me I am wrong, he was able to use the Nikon 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5 with full zoom through. 

I have both lenses in house at the moment and made some quick measurements today. The rear element of the production WACP-1 is 73mm (give or take a MM) while the production WACP-C has a rear element that is 58mm (give or take). The approximately 15mm difference explained why the 28-70 is losing AOV over the WACP-1 and apparently Alex's prototype. I suspect that Alex prototype lens may have a larger rear element than the production version WACP-C. 

The Nikon lens has a 55mm filter thread while the Sony 28-60mm has a 40.5mm filter thread size which I believe makes it too large to work with WACP-C on Nikon DSLR cameras. On Nikon Z-cameras the adapted older Sony FE 28-70mm with 55mm filter thread gives full zoom through unlike the Z 24-70mm F/4s. 

That certainly sheds some light on this issue. Thanks for looking into it! I assume the WACP-C was largely designed for smaller diameter lenses of mirrorless cameras, but hopefully Nauticam will consider making a WACP-C with a larger rear element to accommodate wider diameter lenses. Or is there a downside to this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am afraid I can't provide any more detail on the lens I have until I home from Cayman (happily for me - still a week and a half left here).

These two shots are from the prototype WACP-C. They are shot at 28mm and at 60mm.

28mm:

RS16_am-12228.jpg

60mm:

RS16_am-12225.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have followed this thread since the beginning, and I think we're really getting to the point of splitting hairs. Even Nauticam's most modest wet lens (WWL-1) is a good step up from almost anything in a dome. As Alex's most recent shots show, the WAPC-C is better still, and while maybe not at the pinnacle of performance with the WAPC-1, it's still spectacular and more than capable of producing publication and gallery-quality images. The most important thing is still the content of the image itself.

My wife wants an upgrade from her existing Canon 16-35 II + Nauticam 230mm acrylic dome, and any of these lenses would be a big step up for her. It's pointless to quibble about the quality difference between the WWL-1, WAPC-C and WAPC-1. The WWL-1 can't work with her 5DSR, and the WACP-1 and 2 just aren't viable for us, because we usually travel to dive and, during the Digital Shootout, she found that she had a very hard time handling her 5DSR housing + ONEUW strobes + WACP-1. And then there's transporting the WACP-1. As it is, her ThinkTank is already at 48lbs with the acrylic dome. So for her, like many of us, the practical aspects of travel and topside weight take on additional importance.

If you ask me, Nauticam has done a very wise thing by introducing the WACP-C, and I'm thankful to have it as an option! It's a nice step up from any dome in a travel-friendly form factor.

And besides, if you want:

  • A true rectilinear lens
  • Razor sharpness at the corners and edges, even at moderate apertures
  • Compactness
  • Light weight

Is there any other choice besides this lovely thing? ;)

 

Nikonos 15mm.jpg

Edited by jplaurel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have followed this thread since the beginning, and I think we're really getting to the point of splitting hairs. Even Nauticam's most modest wet lens (WWL-1) is a good step up from almost anything in a dome. As Alex's most recent shots show, the WAPC-C is better still, and while maybe not at the pinnacle of performance with the WAPC-1, it's still spectacular and more than capable of producing publication and gallery-quality images. The most important thing is still the content of the image itself.

My wife wants an upgrade from her existing Canon 16-35 II + Nauticam 230mm acrylic dome, and any of these lenses would be a big step up for her. It's pointless to quibble about the quality difference between the WWL-1, WAPC-C and WAPC-1. The WWL-1 can't work with her 5DSR, and the WACP-1 and 2 just aren't viable for us, because we usually travel to dive and, during the Digital Shootout, she found that she had a very hard time handling her 5DSR housing + ONEUW strobes + WACP-1. And then there's transporting the WACP-1. As it is, her ThinkTank is already at 48lbs with the acrylic dome. So for her, like many of us, the practical aspects of travel and topside weight take on additional importance.

If you ask me, Nauticam has done a very wise thing by introducing the WACP-C, and I'm thankful to have it as an option! It's a nice step up from any dome in a travel-friendly form factor.

And besides, if you want:
  • A true rectilinear lens
  • Razor sharpness at the corners and edges, even at moderate apertures
  • Compactness
  • Light weight
Is there any other choice besides this lovely thing?
 
975936381_Nikonos15mm.thumb.jpg.7d698405192d383247332e32e7d62851.jpg

One of the things that is never considered about the nikkor 15mm is that the field of view is actually of a 20mm lens
If you put a 20mm prime in a dome you don’t need a massive size to get decent quality however it is much bulkier still


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...