Nauticam A6400 Macro Options

[Lewis88 12]

Looking for some help on adding a Macro lens to my current setup, but trying to minimize the amount of new ports/adapters I need to buy and carry with me. 

Currently shooting an A6100 in a Nauticam A6400 housing (Cameras are outwardly identical) with the following Lens/port combos:

• Tokina 10-17/Sigma MC-11 (Nauticam 36207 N85-N120 50mm port adapter, Zen mini dome)
• Sony 16-50mm (Nauticam 36228 40mm macro port with knob)
• I use a +7 diopter on a flip adapter with the Sony lens. 

I am considering the Zeiss Touit 50mm, Sony 90mm, or Canon EF-S 60mm. 

-Zeiss 50mm

Per the port charts, The Zeiss lens requires a 30mm N85 extension ring, and the 45mm macro port. (overall length 75mm). I am wondering if I can sub 2x17mm extension rings stacked, with my current 40mm macro port, giving me 74mm. I'm not sure how tight the Zeiss lens is against the port glass, and if I would have 1mm of clearance. 

The other option is to get rid of the 40mm port for the 16-50, and use the 45mm port for both, but I'm not sure what that does for the 16-50 in terms of vignetting, use of a diopter, etc.)

- Sony 90mm

I also can go 90mm, but that requires a N120 extension ring and another N120 port which will be a packing challenge. 

- Canon 60mm

This port is just very expensive, and from what I can see, the EF-S lens doesn't fit the MC-11 unless modified. Also another port to pack. 

Anyone shooting one of these lenses want to chime in?

Edited March 16 by Lewis88

[dentrock 4]

I shoot the Zeiss 50 a lot with my A6400. Here are a few observations which may help:

1. It has fantastic IQ but new ones are expensive. I bought used over ebay from Japan with no problems.

2. I assume new ones have updated firmware, but used ones may not. You must update the firmware to version 2, otherwise you effectively will not be able to use flash, because it causes about 2 seconds shutter lag with the flash on.

The update must be done by Zeiss. Even Zeiss Australia can't do it. They sent it to Singapore for me. Fortunately all FOC, even on a used lens. Google the firmware update on Zeiss website for more info.

3. I use the 45mm macro port, which was the length originally recommended for the kit lens; plus the 30mm N85 extension. Unfortunately I am separated from my housing for a few months due to medical issue so I can't measure it, but I recall the fit is very close. So you might - or might not - get away with 1mm less.

4. You can use macro lenses behind dome ports. I have used mine with the N85 36125 and 30mm extension which works OK. Your option with 50mm adapter and N120 4.33 dome should be fine, even though by my calculations it misaligns the EP with the dome's optical centre by about -9mm (meaning the dome is too far forward). This is no big deal with normal focal length lenses, but could be an issue with wider ones. I also have a N120 34.7mm adapter which i would prefer to use, since that brings alignment to +6mm. I haven't tested it but it should be fine. I will test it eventually, because this port combo is becoming my "one port to rule them all" for travel.

5. Regarding the camera, I think it has same AF as A6400, so should be good. I upgraded from A6500 to A6400 just for the better AF, and it sure gives the Zeiss a kick in the bum with focus speed. It's too slow really with the older AF bodies.

6. As you say, N120 adapter and various extensions and/or flat port combos are needed for the 90 macro (although I have also shot mine successfully behind a dome). I usually use it in good viz and chasing the smaller stuff. It's not great in low viz but otherwise is very useable with the A6400. The 50 is a better general purpose lens than the 90; meaning you can get better results with bigger stuff as well as macro, and / or in lower viz.

7. I don't do water contact optics.

[Lewis88 12]

@dentrock Thanks for the feedback! 

1,2 - I am going to search for a used one, but am not against new. I'm thinking the 50mm may be more useful and be a little more forgiving for a macro newbie vs the 90mm. Good to know about the firmware update needed. 

3. Any issues with the kit lens in the 45mm port? If there's no vignetting and I can still use a diopter on that port, I could use it for both lenses. Then I'm just packing the dome setup and a single port, for 3 lenses. 

4. This is an interesting idea I hadn't considered. I need to do more research into how the lens behaves behind a dome. 

5. A6100 is basically an A6400 with a plastic body, and a few less custom buttons. There's 1-2 controls on the housing that don't do anything, but otherwise it fits perfectly and I get all the AF goodness from the 6400. 

6. This was my concern about the 90mm.  AF is just okay, and it's a lot of lens and port to pack. I am not planning on shooting super macro tiny subjects (grain of rice, etc) but more fingertip sized shrimp, blennies, etc. 

[ChrisRoss 150]

The issue with the Zeiss lens is the short MFD.  Min focus is achieved 41mm from the end of the lens and once it's in a port you have about 35mm between the port and your subject.  The biggest problem is lighting the subject when you are that close.   You may be OK with this, but the 90mm will give you more working room at 1:1.  It depends on what you are shooting if if it's mostly larger subjects the short MFD won't be a big issue.

[dentrock 4]

I shoot a lot of gobies and other fish as small as 30mm, but typically 40-50mm and up. I have not found working distance a problem for subjects this size, whereas by comparison the 30mm macro is quite hard to use on small fish, because you end up well inside their comfort zone.

The N85 flat ports are very compact so you can get the strobes in nice and close (use 2 strobes).

Min focus Chris quoted is at 1:1 which I don't use much. Eg. if I shot a 24mm goby I would not try to fill the frame with it (which would be 1:1). I would back off so there was space around it, for better composition and DOF. So it probably ends up around 1:2.

So to cut a long story short, the 50 is great to use down to 1:2, but if your main interest is in the range 1:1 to 1:2 then the 90 may be a better option; or perhaps a dioptre if you don't need the ability to quickly recompose for larger subjects. The 90 is def not good for larger subjects (say 15-20cm up) in average or poor viz.

The AF on the 90 is not as bad as some people make out. But you do need cameras with the latest AF. The main issue is following rapidly moving small subjects (like say juvenile wrasses) with such a narrow FOV. But if you can nail the shot the lens provides a lot of keepers.

A clarification on my point 4 above: the alignment figure of -9mm I gave was for the 50mm adapter with a 140mm dome. Your 4.33 dome will likely be similar, but not necessarily the same. The reason is Nauticam fisheye domes I have measured are not true hemispheres - if they were the alignment would be the same for all.

Way to tell is to measure it by drawing a life size cross section of your dome, calculate where the optical centre is, and compare that with where the EP for your lens is with camera mounted in the housing.

The EP for the 50 I calculated is 48mm from lens flange, or approx 35mm from housing face / port flange. So you can compare and work out the difference.

But who cares about the theory? Since you have the bits, just go out and shoot if you get the lens - see if you like macro behind a dome!

Working distance will be further reduced cf the flat port, but strobe positioning is potentially even easier.

Buying used means if you don't like it, you may be able to get your money back if you decide to resell.

Regarding 16-50 kit lens in 45mm port, I sold it years ago, and never used a dioptre with it, although I did try the WWL-1 long enough to figure that wasn't for me. IQ is quite good in the mid range, but falls off at either end. A question for someone else...

[ChrisRoss 150]

56 minutes ago, dentrock said:

Min focus Chris quoted is at 1:1 which I don't use much. Eg. if I shot a 24mm goby I would not try to fill the frame with it (which would be 1:1). I would back off so there was space around it, for better composition and DOF. So it probably ends up around 1:2.

 

Yes it's a case of horses for courses - fish portraits are quite different to shooting small nudis and other true macro subjects.  THe 90mm can do your fish portraits and achieve 1:1, while 50mm might struggle.  On the other hand if you are shooting bigger subjects in not so clean water you might be too far back with the 90mm. 

With that short working distance in the 50mm though diopters are not that useful as they magnify by allowing you get closer and if you are already 41 mm away getting closer is not feasible.

 

[dentrock 4]

Yes no way I would use a dioptre with the 50 (though others might try). I don't like them anyway. I have successfully shot 10mm mysids with the 90, though it's hit and miss (with a lot of miss). For even smaller subjects, I'd still rather use a proper macro lens, but it would need to be something like the 90mm Olympus, which goes to 2:1. Currently N/A for Sony (with AF, which I insist on having).

[Barmaglot 230]

I'm using Sony 90mm and Canon 60mm with Metabones IV on an A6300 in SeaFrogs housing. The 90mm has good standoff distance, and can take a diopter for supermacro (I use a Weefine WFL05S +13), but autofocus is somewhat sluggish, and finding a subject with a narrow FoV and shallow DoF can be challenging. It can shoot fish portraits in a distance, even in water that is not particularly clear - I use a pair of Retra strobes with reflectors, and this particular combination emits a pair of very sharply defined but relatively narrow beams which converge on the target without lighting up the particles in front of it. Here, for example, is a garden eel:

With a diopter it can resolve really tiny stuff like clownfish eggs

However, at least on my older body, I found that the autofocus is too slow for blackwater diving, where everything is tiny and in constant motion. For that I use the Canon EF-S 60mm, which is still frustrating with its frequent failure to lock, but at least it allows me to get some shots, as opposed to 90mm with which I couldn't get any shots at all in my blackwater attempts.

Note that I use the 60mm and 90mm with the same port - it's a bit too long for the 60mm lens, but since I don't use any diopters with it, this is not an issue.

[dentrock 4]

The 90 for garden eels would be a great choice, but I probably wouldn't be bringing it with me to such locations because of size/weight of it plus N120 port necessary with Nauticam A6400.. With your system, same port for 90 plus canon 60 makes perfect sense, since the necessary adapter for the 60 will bring total length of lenses quite close. Plus I think Seafrogs uses wider ID ports than the Nauticam N85 system?

I've searched my records a bit and looks like I rarely use 1:1 with the 50 Zeiss. Usually I crop quite a bit to get more magnification when needed, but mostly the closest I shoot at is about 1:2. However there is plenty of scope for cropping with the Zeiss. The IQ really is very good.

I att a couple of pics taken with the 90 and A6400. The mysid is cropped a bit, but I checked the raw and it was taken at almost 1:1. The mysid is about 10mm long, and was free swimming among a swarm. So quite a test for AF tracking (and following).

The snapper I think was about 15 to 20 cm. The pic is cropped slightly. Viz was perhaps 10m, but in worse viz, while backscatter is easy to avoid, the sheer amount of water between you and the subject (with subjects this size and larger) just degrades the image. This one I consider a relatively good result.

I think the upgrade from A6500 to A6400 with AF tracking is well worth it, but an expensive proposition, given that I also had to change Nauticam housings, so not for everybody. Very noticeable improvement in AF speed and stickiness.

[Barmaglot 230]

7 minutes ago, dentrock said:

Plus I think Seafrogs uses wider ID ports than the Nauticam N85 system? 

SeaFrogs has two port systems; 80mm for A6xxx and RX100, and 90mm for A7 and A6600. The latter allows for use of a focus gear with the 90mm, but the former is just too narrow for it, since the lens diameter is 79mm.

10 minutes ago, dentrock said:

I think the upgrade from A6500 to A6400 with AF tracking is well worth it, but an expensive proposition, given that I also had to change Nauticam housings, so not for everybody. Very noticeable improvement in AF speed and stickiness.

I keep thinking about it, as I would only need a body swap - my housing fits A6000, A6100, A6300, A6400 and A6500 with only minor internal part changes - but the constant rumors about Sony finally refreshing the APS-C line hold me back every time. If Sony were to bring out a =<$1500 crop body with A1 autofocus tech and, ideally, A6400 form factor (i.e. fitting into existing housing, the way A6300 -> A6400 upgrade went), I'd go 'Shut up and take my money!', but as it stands now, I am not quite convinced.