WACP-C Compared to WWL-1B

[Muriel 2]

Hello All,

Does anybody have real underwater experience with image results from use of Nauticam WACP-C use with Canon EF 28-70 f/3.5-4.5 II and WWL-1B unsure of which lens.  My proposed use is Canon R5, looking to replace Canon 7D had used Tokina 10-17, Canon 60mm macro and 100 Macro.  Will continue to use 100 macro, interested in replacing 10-17 & 60mm with either WACP-C or WWL-1B.  Appreciate input. Thank you.

Edited March 17 by Muriel
left out some lens information

[Barmaglot 230]

I don't believe it's possible to use WWL-1 with full-frame Canon cameras, whether EF or RF mount - a compatible lens does not appear to exist thus far. You can use it with an R7 and its 18-45mm kit lens, but if you want full-frame, you need to look at Sony, or Nikon Z with a Sony lens. For Canon full-frame, if you want water-contact optics, WACP is the only game in town.

[Muriel 2]

Thank you for this information... it is times like this I think I wish I would have decided on Sony a1 rather than R5.  Is the WACP-C not an option with R5?

[hyp 104]

I'm sure a look at the wacp-c port chart will answer that question. 

[ChrisRoss 150]

The WACP port chart seems a little incomplete and only offers a 15-35 APS-C lens for RF mount.  However the Nauticam RF port chart states as the last item that the EF port chart applies to a mirrorless Canon camera plus EF-RF adapter combination. 

So logically if the 28-70 and 28-80 lenses behave well on the EF-RF adapter you can use them with the WACP-C.  By behave well I mean they autofocus properly.  Optically the situation with those lenses is the same if you use the WACP with the recommended extension on an R series camera.   All three 28-70/28-80 lenses use the 21325 N100-N120 adapter together with the WACP-C.

 

[Interceptor121 720]

Hello All,
Does anybody have real underwater experience with image results from use of Nauticam WACP-C use with Canon EF 28-70 f/3.5-4.5 II and WWL-1B unsure of which lens.  My proposed use is Canon R5, looking to replace Canon 7D had used Tokina 10-17, Canon 60mm macro and 100 Macro.  Will continue to use 100 macro, interested in replacing 10-17 & 60mm with either WACP-C or WWL-1B.  Appreciate input. Thank you.

The WACP WWL-1 field of view is narrower than the Tokina 10-17mm on APSC
The closest option is Canon 8-15mm with 1.4 TC


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ChrisRoss 150]

41 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

The WACP WWL-1 field of view is narrower than the Tokina 10-17mm on APSC
The closest option is Canon 8-15mm with 1.4 TC


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is a good point, the WACP/WWL is not a direct replacement for a fullframe fisheye as it doesn't have the same very wide field.  The canon 8-15 and 1.4x is discussed recently in this thread: 

 

[Muriel 2]

On 3/17/2023 at 12:45 PM, Barmaglot said:

I don't believe it's possible to use WWL-1 with full-frame Canon cameras, whether EF or RF mount - a compatible lens does not appear to exist thus far. You can use it with an R7 and its 18-45mm kit lens, but if you want full-frame, you need to look at Sony, or Nikon Z with a Sony lens. For Canon full-frame, if you want water-contact optics, WACP is the only game in town.

Upon further investigation, you are correct.  WACP-1 and appears WACP-C.  Seems I should maybe have invested in Sony a1 rather than Canon R5...

[Muriel 2]

On 3/17/2023 at 3:04 PM, hyp said:

I'm sure a look at the wacp-c port chart will answer that question. 

Indeed, port chart indicates, compatible with Canon Full Frame a few lens options.

Canon EF 28-80mm 19559 21325 85205 Lens FOV 75-31o
f/3.5-5.6 V USM C2880f3.5V-Z N120 to N100 25mm Port Adaptor WACP - C Converted FOV 130-54o
Canon EF 28-70mm 19557 21325 85205 Lens FOV 72-34o
f/3.5-4.5 II C2870f3.5II-Z N120 to N100 25mm Port Adaptor WACP - C Converted FOV 130-59o

* slight vignetting when focus distance from port to subject is less than 10cm at 28mm

Canon EF 28-80mm 19558 21325 85205 Lens FOV 75-30o
f/3.5-5.6 II C2880f3.5II-Z N120 to N100 25mm Port Adaptor WACP - C

[Muriel 2]

On 3/17/2023 at 5:34 PM, ChrisRoss said:

The WACP port chart seems a little incomplete and only offers a 15-35 APS-C lens for RF mount.  However the Nauticam RF port chart states as the last item that the EF port chart applies to a mirrorless Canon camera plus EF-RF adapter combination. 

So logically if the 28-70 and 28-80 lenses behave well on the EF-RF adapter you can use them with the WACP-C.  By behave well I mean they autofocus properly.  Optically the situation with those lenses is the same if you use the WACP with the recommended extension on an R series camera.   All three 28-70/28-80 lenses use the 21325 N100-N120 adapter together with the WACP-C.

 

Appreciate your help. I have a better understanding now, reviewing the chart, does not appear any indication there is compatible RF lenses... must be a sophisticated software to figure all the glass out.  Wonder if an RF lens will ever be a good match with the WACP-C.  Or, maybe not necessary to find additional compatible lenses for WACP-C for Canon full frame R cameras, the currently compatible could suffice.  WACP's are large investments to be wedded older lenses.

Canon EF 28-80mm 19559 21325 85205 Lens FOV 75-31o
f/3.5-5.6 V USM C2880f3.5V-Z N120 to N100 25mm Port Adaptor WACP - C Converted FOV 130-54o
Canon EF 28-70mm 19557 21325 85205 Lens FOV 72-34o
f/3.5-4.5 II C2870f3.5II-Z N120 to N100 25mm Port Adaptor WACP - C Converted FOV 130-59o

* slight vignetting when focus distance from port to subject is less than 10cm at 28mm

Canon EF 28-80mm 19558 21325 85205 Lens FOV 75-30o
f/3.5-5.6 II C2880f3.5II-Z N120 to N100 25mm Port Adaptor WACP - C

[Interceptor121 720]

It is not complicated
If you look at the WWL-1 analysis i did on the A1

https://interceptor121.com/2023/03/11/nauticam-wwl-1-on-sony-full-frame-what-to-expect/

You can see that the WWL-1 supports lenses that are physically small those fit in a flat port
Lenses that are bigger (filter size > 52mm) don’t fit a flat port and require a dry mount
Canon has not made small and slow RF lenses is focussed on premium products and those are big
Most canon and nikon compatible lenses are obsolete kit lenses of previous generation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ChrisRoss 150]

7 hours ago, Muriel said:

Appreciate your help. I have a better understanding now, reviewing the chart, does not appear any indication there is compatible RF lenses... must be a sophisticated software to figure all the glass out.  Wonder if an RF lens will ever be a good match with the WACP-C.  Or, maybe not necessary to find additional compatible lenses for WACP-C for Canon full frame R cameras, the currently compatible could suffice.  WACP's are large investments to be wedded older lenses.

Canon EF 28-80mm 19559 21325 85205 Lens FOV 75-31o
f/3.5-5.6 V USM C2880f3.5V-Z N120 to N100 25mm Port Adaptor WACP - C Converted FOV 130-54o
Canon EF 28-70mm 19557 21325 85205 Lens FOV 72-34o
f/3.5-4.5 II C2870f3.5II-Z N120 to N100 25mm Port Adaptor WACP - C Converted FOV 130-59o

* slight vignetting when focus distance from port to subject is less than 10cm at 28mm

Canon EF 28-80mm 19558 21325 85205 Lens FOV 75-30o
f/3.5-5.6 II C2880f3.5II-Z N120 to N100 25mm Port Adaptor WACP - C

The premise is that there is a plentiful supply of these old lenses on the second hand market and they can be picked up quite cheaply. 

If your not so comfortable with that you could look at a Canon 8-15 lens with a 1.4x converter which is effectively a direct replacement for your Tokina 10-17.  In full frame terms it would be 11-21mm equivalent lens but usable from 15 - 21mm.  It doesn't have quite the reach of the WWL but is significantly wider

[Muriel 2]

7 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

It is not complicated
If you look at the WWL-1 analysis i did on the A1

https://interceptor121.com/2023/03/11/nauticam-wwl-1-on-sony-full-frame-what-to-expect/

You can see that the WWL-1 supports lenses that are physically small those fit in a flat port
Lenses that are bigger (filter size > 52mm) don’t fit a flat port and require a dry mount
Canon has not made small and slow RF lenses is focussed on premium products and those are big
Most canon and nikon compatible lenses are obsolete kit lenses of previous generation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fabulous information, thank you very much, my thought process is just spinning... difficult to decide without hands on, however, hands on is not part of the process in this expensive endeavor, making all the decisions more difficult.  I appreciate your replies and information.  I just do not yet trust WACP-C will be the real deal and the cost to the unknown is affecting the purchase decision.  And WACP-1, wow to travel with that : - (   maybe the EMWL would be more of a reasonable investment.  Well... none of Nauticam is a reasonable investment, however, it is what it is, expense wise.  Again, thank you!

[Barmaglot 230]

1 hour ago, Muriel said:

I just do not yet trust WACP-C will be the real deal and the cost to the unknown is affecting the purchase decision.

You can see a basic comparison between WACP-1/WACP-C/WWL-1/16-35mm+dome here: https://www.facebook.com/NauticamThailand/posts/pfbid02Rx7a3XcKJzRSHnjVT9bx5G7XPVNBmVY1GpuxP24QNRqHCAAKpC6c4hbvWWYwvzn7l

As of EMWL, I don't own one, but watching people who do, it doesn't appear to be an everyday general-purpose solution - it can do shots that an everyday lens can't, but it can only do those shots.

[hyp 104]

Also depending on your setup EMWL may not work optimally. There are quite a few posts of people having backfocussing issues with it because focus breathing gets magnified by the lens. 

[Muriel 2]

3 hours ago, Barmaglot said:

You can see a basic comparison between WACP-1/WACP-C/WWL-1/16-35mm+dome here: https://www.facebook.com/NauticamThailand/posts/pfbid02Rx7a3XcKJzRSHnjVT9bx5G7XPVNBmVY1GpuxP24QNRqHCAAKpC6c4hbvWWYwvzn7l

As of EMWL, I don't own one, but watching people who do, it doesn't appear to be an everyday general-purpose solution - it can do shots that an everyday lens can't, but it can only do those shots.

Hello, thank you for your reply. I had reviewed the link you have provided, one tiny concern is they were taken with Sony & Sony lenses, not Canon, I guess could believe similar results from Canon.  Understand about the EMWL, however, at least images taken appear very good/sharp, seems better than to have something than expensive marginal is what I was thinking, maybe only brief thinking that will pass, maybe.

[Muriel 2]

2 hours ago, hyp said:

Also depending on your setup EMWL may not work optimally. There are quite a few posts of people having backfocussing issues with it because focus breathing gets magnified by the lens. 

OK, still trying to kick all this around, I feel I am locked in to Canon as I purchase the Canon R5 a couple months ago, without realizing some of the limitations I would have with R5 & Nauticam.  I suppose I could take a loss on R5 and switch to Sony a1, however, now, am running out of time previous to a trip departure. At this point I am actually considering purchase of an R7, which that thinking has it's issues also, however, would be able to use WWL-1B I think, which would provide some savings on housing and Nauticam optics.  Purchasing an R7 is not the worst idea I have had, was just a bit unimpressed with the R7, however, may need to reconsider.

[ChrisRoss 150]

1 hour ago, Muriel said:

OK, still trying to kick all this around, I feel I am locked in to Canon as I purchase the Canon R5 a couple months ago, without realizing some of the limitations I would have with R5 & Nauticam.  I suppose I could take a loss on R5 and switch to Sony a1, however, now, am running out of time previous to a trip departure. At this point I am actually considering purchase of an R7, which that thinking has it's issues also, however, would be able to use WWL-1B I think, which would provide some savings on housing and Nauticam optics.  Purchasing an R7 is not the worst idea I have had, was just a bit unimpressed with the R7, however, may need to reconsider.

I don't think there are really any limitations with Canon, the 28-70 lenses are a well proven solution and you can use the native 8-15 fisheye with it which with a 1.4x is a well proven direct replacement for the Tokina 10-17 with better optical quality.  To use that with Sony you need a Sony-Canon EF adapter. 

This Nauticam Thailand page linked above page has images shot with Sony lenses, however there is also a page shot with Canon lenses, find the album on this page:  https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?vanity=NauticamThailand&set=a.494436099369728

You can use the 8-15 lens in a 140mm dome port.

The thing to remember is that everything is a compromise with UW optics, the use of lenses underwater is not a design consideration at all when these lenses are produced and we need to accept that there is no really perfect solution.    For still images any of the brands will have a solution that makes great images.  You could sell off your R5 at a loss and end up with more or less the same images from a different camera.  The WWL-1 works quite well with the little Sony lens, but I believe Interceptor has shown that the optical quality of the lens while acceptable is not the best around.

 

 

[Muriel 2]

45 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

I don't think there are really any limitations with Canon, the 28-70 lenses are a well proven solution and you can use the native 8-15 fisheye with it which with a 1.4x is a well proven direct replacement for the Tokina 10-17 with better optical quality.  To use that with Sony you need a Sony-Canon EF adapter. 

This Nauticam Thailand page linked above page has images shot with Sony lenses, however there is also a page shot with Canon lenses, find the album on this page:  https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?vanity=NauticamThailand&set=a.494436099369728

You can use the 8-15 lens in a 140mm dome port.

The thing to remember is that everything is a compromise with UW optics, the use of lenses underwater is not a design consideration at all when these lenses are produced and we need to accept that there is no really perfect solution.    For still images any of the brands will have a solution that makes great images.  You could sell off your R5 at a loss and end up with more or less the same images from a different camera.  The WWL-1 works quite well with the little Sony lens, but I believe Interceptor has shown that the optical quality of the lens while acceptable is not the best around.

 

 

Thank you for the added link, I had not seen the Canon comparison, Thank you.  As for the replacement of my 10-17 for APC, I do not need direct replacement.  I used the Zen compact glass port for travel-ability, I am not interested in a large diameter dome, that is why the 28-70 with a WACP-C seemed a good option.  I realize the weight of WACP-1 & C are heavy but somewhat more compact in diameter than a wide dome, compact would be my preference as I enjoyed using my Zen port with the 10-17.  I am looking for improved sharpness from a new investment, again takes me to WACP-1 or more preferred the cost and smaller size of the WACP-C with the R5 compared to the WWL lens with anything.  I have even considered the EMWL lens set up, however, the EMWL is obviously completely different type of wide angle and looks a bit of a challenge to have out front of camera and probably not any over all weight reduction when packing for travel.  As time table to purchase is closing, I have cold feet.  This past week received a report by somebody very reputable, they were disappointed in performance of WACP-C and the only way to go was WACP-1 on Canon or a WWL-1 (must be on Sony) as WWL-1B is not an option for Canon as I quickly learned with the help of this forum after my post.  Everything a compromise, you have correctly stated.  Shaving off 50-100+ mm in overall size and a couple pounds of weight by rethinking about an R7 or Sony a1, maybe just stick with the R5 and continue to manage the size and weight.  I guess too much stuff to pack & haul is the burden of the addiction to UW Photography.  If I was really serious about trimming my kit down, would/should have gone to Micro 4/3rd's kit.  Once we invest in a housing that matches camera body, at least in my case, is a many year investment.  Making a $14,000+ cost, a bit of a serious purchase.  I thank you very much for your input, has been helpful in trying to move forward with purchase of housing and port(s).

[Barmaglot 230]

If you're looking for compact and lightweight, your best bet is probably 8-15mm + 1.4x teleconverter in a compact dome. Nauticam recommends 140mm glass dome, but people here have reported successfully using it in a 4.33" acrylic fisheye dome, which is half the weight and cost of the glass one. Without the teleconverter, the 8-15mm gives you a circular fisheye at 8mm, and a 180-degree diagonal fisheye at 15mm; with a teleconverter I believe you get the 180-degree look (similar to Tokina 10-17@10mm) at 11mm, and going to 15mm lets you narrow it down a bit, putting you in the same ballpark as the 10-17mm as far as AoV goes. Oddly, I've seen little to no discussion of using a 2x teleconverter rather than the 1.4x one.

[ChrisRoss 150]

3 hours ago, Muriel said:

, I am not interested in a large diameter dome, that is why the 28-70 with a WACP-C seemed a good option.  I realize the weight of WACP-1 & C are heavy but somewhat more compact in diameter than a wide dome, compact would be my preference as I enjoyed using my Zen port with the 10-17.  I am looking for improved sharpness from a new investment, again takes me to WACP-1 or more preferred the cost and smaller size of the WACP-C with the R5 compared to the WWL lens with anything.  I have even considered the EMWL lens set up, however, the EMWL is obviously completely different type of wide angle and looks a bit of a challenge to have out front of camera and probably not any over all weight reduction when packing for travel. 

Which is why I suggested the 8-15 and 1.4x combo.  The 140mm dome is a small dome, barely bigger than the diameter of the extension rings and weighs a whole lot less than either WACP or WWL-1.    Several people have stated that the fisheye has better optics overall than the WACP-C and WWL-1.  You can see the sizes of the 140mm and 4.33"domes here mounted on a Sony A1 housing, your setup would be similar size:

https://interceptor121.com/2023/03/04/canon-8-15mm-with-4-33-acrylic-dome-for-sony-a1/

weights and dia as follows:

• WWL-1B:            156mm dia and 1350 gr in air
• WACP-C             170 mm dia and 2240 gr
• 140mm dome    ~160 mm dia and 630 grams (Can't find the exact dia )

So all three are in the same ballpark for diameter and the 140mm dome is significantly lighter.  You can use the 8-15 bare to get circular & full frame fisheye or as discussed above add the 1.4x to zoom between a full frame fisheye  (same as 10mm on 10-17) and a 21mm fisheye which around 26mm rectilinear lens field of view.    They are all standard setups on the Nauticam port charts with recommended extensions and zoom gears.  If you are not interested in circular fisheye you don't need a zoom gear to use the 8-15 as a pure full frame fisheye. 

You do not need the 230mm dome for the 8-15 fisheye and there is no huge advantage to using it and it works better for CFWA with the 140mm dome.  Nauticam mark the 140mm dome as most optimised for the 8-15 zoom.

Definitely no to the EMWL - you might eventually decide you would like to use it, but it's specialized and not that easy to use.

To be clear though this is mostly based on you coming from the 10-17 and we are assuming you were happy with that as far as field of view goes.  What are your preferences for shooting - reef scenics? CFWA? large pelagics?  that may push you in one direction or another more so than optical arguments.

As for the statement you must have the WACP-1 - I think that really depends on how much of an optical purist you are in combination with being a glutton for punishment that hauling the 3.9kg WACP-1 around involves.  That's something only you can decide and it's another trade off of Optical quality vs $$$$ and weight and size. 

I would think that the 8-15 with 1.4x is probably not quite a sharp as the WACP-1 but perfectly acceptable and significantly easier to travel with and haul around. 

On the weight front a Sony A1 is a little lighter housing than the R5 but using it with the WWL vs the R5 with 8-15 you would end up around the same weight.

[Interceptor121 720]

Thank you for the added link, I had not seen the Canon comparison, Thank you.  As for the replacement of my 10-17 for APC, I do not need direct replacement.  I used the Zen compact glass port for travel-ability, I am not interested in a large diameter dome, that is why the 28-70 with a WACP-C seemed a good option.  I realize the weight of WACP-1 & C are heavy but somewhat more compact in diameter than a wide dome, compact would be my preference as I enjoyed using my Zen port with the 10-17.  I am looking for improved sharpness from a new investment, again takes me to WACP-1 or more preferred the cost and smaller size of the WACP-C with the R5 compared to the WWL lens with anything.  I have even considered the EMWL lens set up, however, the EMWL is obviously completely different type of wide angle and looks a bit of a challenge to have out front of camera and probably not any over all weight reduction when packing for travel.  As time table to purchase is closing, I have cold feet.  This past week received a report by somebody very reputable, they were disappointed in performance of WACP-C and the only way to go was WACP-1 on Canon or a WWL-1 (must be on Sony) as WWL-1B is not an option for Canon as I quickly learned with the help of this forum after my post.  Everything a compromise, you have correctly stated.  Shaving off 50-100+ mm in overall size and a couple pounds of weight by rethinking about an R7 or Sony a1, maybe just stick with the R5 and continue to manage the size and weight.  I guess too much stuff to pack & haul is the burden of the addiction to UW Photography.  If I was really serious about trimming my kit down, would/should have gone to Micro 4/3rd's kit.  Once we invest in a housing that matches camera body, at least in my case, is a many year investment.  Making a $14,000+ cost, a bit of a serious purchase.  I thank you very much for your input, has been helpful in trying to move forward with purchase of housing and port(s).

The canon 8-15mm also works with the zen 100 which is heavier than the acrylic 4.33 but a little bit smaller
The wwl-1 on my a1 has similar weight to the canon 8-15 a bit more actually and heavier than the acrylic
The zen will be in the same ballpark
So wwl-1 and canon 8-15 options on my a1 are on the same ballpark
WACP C or 1 will be heavier dry. The WACP-C only few hundred grams in fact but at the end you will still need a fisheye.
As I recall the RF system housings are also heavier than Sony and generally you are looking at WACP-1
Only the Sony system is a bit more compact but still pretty negative in water and the housings cost less too
It was the reason for me to get an A1 the camera costs more but there is more choice of underwater ports


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Muriel 2]

5 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

The canon 8-15mm also works with the zen 100 which is heavier than the acrylic 4.33 but a little bit smaller
The wwl-1 on my a1 has similar weight to the canon 8-15 a bit more actually and heavier than the acrylic
The zen will be in the same ballpark
So wwl-1 and canon 8-15 options on my a1 are on the same ballpark
WACP C or 1 will be heavier dry. The WACP-C only few hundred grams in fact but at the end you will still need a fisheye.
As I recall the RF system housings are also heavier than Sony and generally you are looking at WACP-1
Only the Sony system is a bit more compact but still pretty negative in water and the housings cost less too
It was the reason for me to get an A1 the camera costs more but there is more choice of underwater ports
 

Thank you, and I am finding now the a1 may have been the better choice, given my intended use is underwater.

[Interceptor121 720]

1 hour ago, Muriel said:

Thank you, and I am finding now the a1 may have been the better choice, given my intended use is underwater.

This may be of interest at the bottom there are link to pool tests of all the rigs

I always spend time in a pool before going to open water with new equipment to avoid suprises

https://interceptor121.com/2023/02/04/moving-to-full-frame-without-increasing-bulk/

[ColdDarkDiver 23]

3 hours ago, Muriel said:

Thank you, and I am finding now the a1 may have been the better choice, given my intended use is underwater.

I think  you will find that as you shoot the R5 underwater, that you won't regret the decision.  A few ways to think about it:

1) The WWL-C will work with the RF 24mm and give you a 24mm lens behind a flat port or 130 degree view behind the WWL-c.

2) The difference in cost between the A1 and the R5 is the difference in cost between the WACP-1 and WACP-C.  They are not that different in size and if anything the N120 mount on the WACP-1 will make it more likely to work on any camera system you get in the future.

3) The R5 is ALSO a great 1.6 crop camera. So you can always just plop on an RF-S lens and shoot it as such, making the R7 a less compelling rig (there are still some arguments for it - but you already own the R5).  You can custom button between the two modes and if you do shoot it as a crop the 15-30 + WACP-c is a good choice. I'd love it if someone had this rig and could see if it works at 30mm in FF mode giving 130 degree view.

4) The R5 works natively with the Canon 8-15 for the ultimate compact CFWA rig when combined with a 140mm dome. Well, natively with the EF-RF adaptor.   

5) I wouldn't be surprised if the new 24-50 Canon, which has a small front element, might work with the WACP-c from 28-50.  It seems to extend a bit - so maybe not. 

The R5 is a joy to shoot.  I'm sure the Sony A1 is too.  But I would not regret your decision and I don't think you will as soon as you start looking at the images you can capture with it.