Interceptor121 843 Posted June 6 1 hour ago, Phil Rudin said: Fear not Wolfgang I am sure you will be pleased with the results behind the 170/180mm dome. The fact is that you can easily focus down to about 2 to 3cm in the 180mmm port. This zoom lens will get you a bit closer on the 70mm end with about a 1cm difference on the wide end. While I own several lenses that will focus all the way to the glass I can't ever remember wanting to ram my expensive port glass into the subject I am photographing. If you were to choose the 230mm option then it will be focusing inside the glass. I use the light in my pool to test close focus, it is 15cm (6 inches) across so you can get an idea of how close you can get at both ends of the lens. I have used the Marelux Sony A7R V housing for these photos with the MX-180mm dome and 50mm of extension. The conversion for the Nauticam housing with the N100 to N120 35.5 port adapter would be an extension around 30mm with 180mm port. Since the $1100.00US Sony FE 20-70mm F/4 covers the zoom range of both the $2300.00US Sony FE 24-70mm F/2.8 II and the $700.00US Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 I will not be investing in either of these lenses nor do I believe the F/2.8 aperture adds any value for U/W work. Images both at F/13 AV light, #1 at 20mm and #2 at 70mm. Focussing inside the glass occurs only if the extension is too long for the specific dome it is not related to the dome radius of its own You can have a relatively narrow lens with an extension longer than necessary and focus on the dome however the loss of field view means the dome will have pincushion distortion and the edges will pull Many lenses due to the lack of close working distance loose substantially field of view so they effective focal length is no longer 20mm or what you think This is why a lens that focusses close combined with a correctly positioned dome bears better result and even so you can bet that your fisheye lens is nowhere near 180 degrees and your wide angle lens of 20mm is actually 22-24mm field of view due to to close focus point Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dhaas 40 Posted June 7 (edited) Talk about splitting hairs....... So what if a slightly longer extension means you need to back up what, possibly 2 inches to achieve the same FOV (Field OF View) ??? I don't think the opinions based on measurbating are worth much when: 1) The poster doesn't even own the lens, housing, port and extension being discussed for real world underwater shooting. Plus never even been in the water with it! 2) Continually preaches because what they bought for more $$$$ it has to be "better"....... 3) Believes everyone wants the same exact focal lengths, equipment choices, similar type of photos, etc. Please, no activity has to be the same for everyone....... The Sony 20-70mm with a 170-180mm dome will satisfy many users who want a one lens choice even if small compromises are really there. I'd contend in 99.99999% of photos no one would ever, and I mean EVER notice said "deficiencies" unless they want to pixel peep at 200-300% in the corners. Plus every stunning photograph EVER was CROPPED as a first edit....... PLEASE, just buy what you want and practice enough to learn your rig's strengths. Then go make underwater images YOU are happy with. You'll be happier and enjoy yourself more underwater Just one old guy's opinion! DH Edited June 7 by dhaas typos 2 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Interceptor121 843 Posted June 7 6 hours ago, dhaas said: Talk about splitting hairs....... So what if a slightly longer extension means you need to back what, 2 inches to achieve the same FOV (Field OF View) ??? I don't think the opinions based on measurbating are worth much when: 1) The poster doesn't even own the lens and port and extension being discussed for real world underwater shooting. Plus never even been in the water with it! 2) Continually preaches because what they bought for more $$$$ it has to be "better"....... 3) Believes everyone wants the same exact focal lengths, equipment choices, similar type of photos, etc. Please, no activity or whatever has to be the same for everyone....... The Sony 20-70mm with a 170-180mm dome will satisfy many users who want a one lens choice even small compromises are really there. I'd contend in 99.99999% of photos no one would ever, and I mean EVER notice said "deficiencies" unless they want to pixel peep at 200-300% in the corners. Plus every stunning photograph EVER was CROPPED as a first edit....... PLEASE, just buy what you want and practice enough to learn your rig's strengths. Then go make underwater images YOU are happy with. You'll be happier and enjoy yourself more underwater Just one old guy's opinion! DH An image with subject only in the centre is not represantive of image quality by any means And even your answer is brutally wrong because having the right extension is paramount to image quality. You are putting a lens behind a dome with a specific objective which is to preserve field of view. If you get the extension totally wrong you may end up with a flat port this not only kills field of view but also creates chromatic aberrations This is why many images of rectilinear lenses underwater with systems like seafrogs that do not allow to position the dome properly look always terrible In fact it is not about the money is about the knowledge. If you make a choice of wanting to use a small port, which in fact I have done myself using the 180mm wide angle port, you need to choose the lenses that best fit that port which means those that are built in a way to be more compatible. As consequence such lenses get the * for best performance on the nauticam chart even with the smaller dome while others don't even if they offer a smaller field of view. For E-mount the Sony primes 20mm G and 24mm GM fall in this category and in my view also the 24-70GM2. The tamron 1728 and 20-40 do very well and won't benefit much out of larger port. A bunch of other sony lenses will not do so well with a smaller port because their working distance is long or the lens is small and the working distance in proportion is too long requiring a larger radius dome The Sony 20-70mm G is not a cheap lens at all. It costs £1,399 in UK the Tamron 20-40mm instead costs £879 and in UK is even overpriced. Now exactly the opposite of what you said you will be spending less with the tamron and get better performance with the 180mm dome. I can shoot this lens at f/5.6 and it looks good. You will be giving up the range between 40 and 70 for a fish portrait compared to a longer lens. It would be nice to have an all around lens that has a lot of zoom and works with a relatively small wide angle port but the Sony 20-70mm is not that lens otherwise I would have bought it already Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Humu797 21 Posted June 7 Thank you David Haas. I agree with your thoughts wholeheartedly. Interceptor121 has a way of ruining ones breakfast. Craig Fujii Waipahu, HI Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Humu797 21 Posted June 8 (edited) A few frames from the FE 20-70mm f4. A7c body in a Nauticam housing with Inon Z240s. 180 cm dome. All are full frame, uploaded RAW to Lightroom, unsharpened, exported to JPEG. Depth between 20-35 feet. 1 - Christmas Tree Worm. 70mm 1/160th at f10, ISO 64 2 - 20mm 1/160th at f5.6, ISO 64 3 - Yellowstripe Goatfish. 70mm 1/160th at f5.6, ISO 64 Edited June 8 by Humu797 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Architeuthis 192 Posted August 16 (edited) I have now the 20-70mm Sony and use it with A7R5 behind Zen DP170/N120 with 45mm extension plus 35.5mm N100/N120 adapter (that is the extension that Nauticam recommends for the similar Nauticam 180 dome, extrapolated to the DP170 dimensions)... It is a phantastic lens, very comparable to the Zuiko 12-40 with MFT, albeit I like the zoom range better (10-35mm extrapolated to MFT). I find it the ideal lens for fish portraits of regular sized fishes and 20mm is already real, but not extreme, WA. For more skittish larger animals, this lens also may be very good. So far the 8-15mm fisheye, with and without 1.4x TC covers almost all my extreme WA desires (for inbeteween fisheye and 20-70, I have the Tamron 17-28, but this lens does not get much use so far). The 20-70 is also used in the same domeport as the MFT/12-40 has been used before, so size and weight of the two Nauticam rigs (EM1II vs A7R5) is not much different between MFT and FF UW. The only complaint that I have is, that I do not use this lens too often. This was already the case with the 12-40/MFT and after every diving holidays, when working on the images and browsing through them, I planned to use it more often next time. This was also the case with the second last diving holidays this June/July in Egypt, where I used the 20-70 just for a single dive at the housereef of the Mangrove Bay Resort (on September 1st, we will take off for another two weeks in Egy and I plan to use this lens this time more often...). Here are some example images from the dive in Egypt, different distances and perspectives (2* Inon Z330 with all photos; I hope IQ does not suffer too much from the required compression): 23mm, f/10, 1/200s, ISO100: 20mm, f/9, 1/200s, ISO100: 21mm, f/9, 1/200s, ISO100: 20mm, f/9, 1/200s, ISO100: 70mm, f/9, 1/200s, ISO100: 47mm, f/8, 1/160s, ISO100: Wolfgang Edited August 16 by Architeuthis 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Proteus 4 Posted August 16 I don't see the 20-70 in the Sony port charts (yet). What zoom gear are you using? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil Rudin 485 Posted August 16 (edited) Nauticam SFE2070-Z ZOOM GEAR FOR SONY FE 20-70 F4 G Edited August 16 by Phil Rudin 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Architeuthis 192 Posted August 16 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Proteus said: I don't see the 20-70 in the Sony port charts (yet). What zoom gear are you using? Hi Proteus, I use the Nauticam Zoomgear: https://www.nauticam.com/products/sfe2070-z-zoom-gear-for-sony-fe-20-70-f4-g I checked the portcharts - indeed the lens is still missing. I took the suggestions from Nauticam that can be seen above - I posted this info on the previous page on April 6th... Wolfgang Edited August 16 by Architeuthis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Proteus 4 Posted August 16 Interesting ... they make a gear and didn't update the charts. Thanks for the help Gary Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Interceptor121 843 Posted August 17 20 hours ago, Architeuthis said: I have now the 20-70mm Sony and use it with A7R5 behind Zen DP170/N120 with 45mm extension plus 35.5mm N100/N120 adapter (that is the extension that Nauticam recommends for the similar Nauticam 180 dome, extrapolated to the DP170 dimensions)... It is a phantastic lens, very comparable to the Zuiko 12-40 with MFT, albeit I like the zoom range better (10-35mm extrapolated to MFT). I find it the ideal lens for fish portraits of regular sized fishes and 20mm is already real, but not extreme, WA. For more skittish larger animals, this lens also may be very good. So far the 8-15mm fisheye, with and without 1.4x TC covers almost all my extreme WA desires (for inbeteween fisheye and 20-70, I have the Tamron 17-28, but this lens does not get much use so far). The 20-70 is also used in the same domeport as the MFT/12-40 has been used before, so size and weight of the two Nauticam rigs (EM1II vs A7R5) is not much different between MFT and FF UW. The only complaint that I have is, that I do not use this lens too often. This was already the case with the 12-40/MFT and after every diving holidays, when working on the images and browsing through them, I planned to use it more often next time. This was also the case with the second last diving holidays this June/July in Egypt, where I used the 20-70 just for a single dive at the housereef of the Mangrove Bay Resort (on September 1st, we will take off for another two weeks in Egy and I plan to use this lens this time more often...). Here are some example images from the dive in Egypt, different distances and perspectives (2* Inon Z330 with all photos; I hope IQ does not suffer too much from the required compression): 23mm, f/10, 1/200s, ISO100: 20mm, f/9, 1/200s, ISO100: 21mm, f/9, 1/200s, ISO100: 20mm, f/9, 1/200s, ISO100: 70mm, f/9, 1/200s, ISO100: 47mm, f/8, 1/160s, ISO100: Wolfgang Resolution destroyed by the forum I guess? Those images do not look sharp even in the centre Do you have anything outside minimum 2-3 megapixels? 6 better? 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Architeuthis 192 Posted August 17 4 hours ago, Interceptor121 said: Resolution destroyed by the forum I guess? Those images do not look sharp even in the centre Do you have anything outside minimum 2-3 megapixels? 6 better? Hi Massimo, I had a closer look a the uploaded photos and you are right - it is a disaster... This forum is not good for viewing photos in high detail... I now opened a similar tread in DPReview/UW-Forum: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4724115 Please have a look there... Wolfgang Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil Rudin 485 Posted August 17 It is difficult to follow the guidelines for WP and get sharp images posted to the site, many look soft when in fact the originals are very sharp. These are from the 20mm end, F/9 at ISO 400 and 70mm end, F/11 at ISO 320, both with two Backscatter MF-2 strobes and the Marelux 180mm dome port. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Interceptor121 843 Posted August 18 Hi Massimo, I had a closer look a the uploaded photos and you are right - it is a disaster... This forum is not good for viewing photos in high detail... I now opened a similar tread in DPReview/UW-Forum: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4724115 Please have a look there... WolfgangMuch better All images appear cropped or are they exported at different resolutions? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Architeuthis 192 Posted August 18 1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said: Much better All images appear cropped or are they exported at different resolutions? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk The images are cropped and at original resolution (exported from LR as JPEG with 98% quality)... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Interceptor121 843 Posted August 18 Just now, Architeuthis said: The images are cropped and at original resolution (exported from LR as JPEG with 98% quality)... That prevents the infamous edge sharpness investigation The bigger selling point of the 20-70 is the zoom range so it is normal to expect the performance not to match lenses that zoom less. I would say the lens is OK not amazing in the overlapping range the 24-70 GM smokes it as it should be as it is GM vs G but I go as far as saying the tamron 20-40 is sharper at overlapping focal range but of course is only 40mm long 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Interceptor121 843 Posted August 18 I also want to add there are now several topside posts everywhere with complaints of weak edges for this lens at the wide end. This is because the lens has massive distortion and correction is a crop so resolution drops Underwater however you can disable it and the lens is no longer rectilinear but sharper Distortion is 10% which is very very large Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Architeuthis 192 Posted August 18 4 hours ago, Interceptor121 said: That prevents the infamous edge sharpness investigation The bigger selling point of the 20-70 is the zoom range so it is normal to expect the performance not to match lenses that zoom less. I would say the lens is OK not amazing in the overlapping range the 24-70 GM smokes it as it should be as it is GM vs G but I go as far as saying the tamron 20-40 is sharper at overlapping focal range but of course is only 40mm long I have added now uncropped versions of the photos with shorter focal length to the tread in DPReview... Please Massimo, and other possibly interested have a look: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4724115#forum-post-67199683 It would be very interesting if you could also post example UW images of the 24-70 and 20-40 lenses (best also in DPReview, because of full resolution) - so that one could see what one is missing... Wolfgang Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Interceptor121 843 Posted August 18 I have added now uncropped versions of the photos with shorter focal length to the tread in DPReview... Please Massimo, and other possibly interested have a look: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4724115#forum-post-67199683 It would be very interesting if you could also post example UW images of the 24-70 and 20-40 lenses (best also in DPReview, because of full resolution) - so that one could see what one is missing... Wolfgang In my last trip I used such lenses only for video. I decided photos will be distorted and video would not So I have only pool shots (not very exciting) and currently am away I need to check if I saved them online in my store on notTo be clear I do not recommend shooting any of those lenses in photos the only one I believe is worthy is the 17-28 that you have The 24-70 is also very good but ends up in the same category you take it with you and never use itSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil Rudin 485 Posted August 18 (edited) I think most of the posts regarding the Sony FE 20-70mm and the related lenses where from a stills point of view since WP has a video section to comment on lenses for video use, not that video information is not useful. Nauticam has today updated the Sony port charts which includes the Sony FE 20-70mm. Like with the Sony FE 24-70mm F/2.8 II the recommended port for best results is the 250mm dome port. No support yet listed for the Sigma 17mm F/4 or the Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8. I think it is clear that the Sony 20-70 is a general purpose lens that is very good for the price point. I would hope that a narrower AOV lens like the 24-70 F/2.8 II at over twice the price would have better image quality which it does out of the water but I doubt you would see much difference underwater especially since most users would be above the base f/numbers in the F/8 and above range on full frame. Again you can find other lenses that will do a better job in a more limited rectilinear range but few if any that allow this amount of coverage behind a 180mm dome port. I have provided two UNCROPPED images at 20mm at F/9 and 70mm at F/18 and about as close as you can get on the long end. I think it is clear that this is an impressive amount of coverage for underwater use and that image quality will be more than adequate for the vast majority of users. Both images are taken using a 180mm dome port. Edited August 18 by Phil Rudin 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Architeuthis 192 Posted August 19 18 hours ago, Interceptor121 said: That prevents the infamous edge sharpness investigation The bigger selling point of the 20-70 is the zoom range so it is normal to expect the performance not to match lenses that zoom less. I would say the lens is OK not amazing in the overlapping range the 24-70 GM smokes it as it should be as it is GM vs G but I go as far as saying the tamron 20-40 is sharper at overlapping focal range but of course is only 40mm long I found Over-Water reviews of the lenses that you discussed in Lenstip and Opticallimits: Tamron 20-40: https://www.lenstip.com/652.4-Lens_review-Tamron_20-40_mm_f_2.8_Di_III_VXD_Image_resolution.html Sony 20-70: https://www.lenstip.com/643.4-Lens_review-Sony_FE_20-70_mm_f_4_G_Image_resolution.html https://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1169-sony2070f4g?start=1 Sony 24-70 GM II: https://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1143-sony2470f28gm2?start=1 Regarding resolution all three lenses perform pretty similar, the 20-70 having a slight edge over the 20-40 and 24-70 slight edge over 20-70 (24mm vs 20mm; pretty the same at 70mm). I doubt these differences will be visible UW. Maybe your copy of the 20-70 is not good? What remains is the relatively big barrel distortion at 20mm (that must not be confused with field curvature). For me, personally, barrel distortion is not a problem UW... Wolfgang Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Interceptor121 843 Posted August 19 Uhm no look at the edge resolution of all those reviews it looses over 10% on both comparisonsThis is due to the distortion correction The 20-70 is a lens that has so much distortion that remains bent even after correction. For this reason this is not an interesting lens topside where lines need to be straightIn general for rectilinear lenses I buy lenses that are god topside and then also underwater generally f/4 lenses are not interesting for me anyway so I don’t consider it regardless My slowest zoom are the 100-400 and 200-600 however those are monster size optics The point is if a lens has 10% distortion and no straight lines why bother when the WWL-1 does better?I foresee the 17-28 useful for wrecks and the 24-70 for shots with models/people that look funny with a fisheyeFor reef shots I see little interest in rectilinear lensesSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
