Fisheye lenses and water contact optic give better corners than rectilinear lenses? Tamron 17-28mm matches it or beats it

[Interceptor121 842]

Last week I went to the pool with the Tamron 17-28mm a lens that is not exactly one of the Sony G or GM but is a very solid performer

It focusses very very close and works very well with the Nauticam 180mm wide angle port

In my opinion this lens beats the WWL-1 with the Sony 28-60mm across the field although is not as wide and is on par with the canon 8-15mm in the edges if not better

I have done some extensive testing of the lens topside before taking into water and the pool session confirmed the trend plus the dome increases depth of field so to some extent better performance

Perhaps the Tamron 28-75mm with WACP-1 will be better or maybe the Sony 28-60mm with the WACP but frankly this lens is perfect for underwater use

See what you think yourself

https://interceptor121.com/2023/03/25/wide-angle-rectilinear-lenses-for-underwater-myths-vs-reality/

[Architeuthis 179]

Thank you for drawing my attention to this interesting lens, that I overlooked so far (and also to Phil for making the interesting review in UWPMag in 2021)...

The Tamron 17-28mm may not be a direct competitor of the fisheye/WACP lenses, but is certainly very interesting for rectilinear WA. According to Opticallimits, the Tamron performs over the water optically better than the Sony 16-35mm GM f2.8 and (almost) as good as the new Sony PZ 16-35mm f 4.0 (a new 16-35mm mark II is soon to appear in addition)...

Not only you, but also the Nauticam port chards are in favor of the Tamron 17-28: For the Sony 16-35mm GM the 230 dome is recommended, while Nauticam recommends the 250 dome for the Sony PZ 16-35mm. Interestingly, for the Tamron 17-28mm the 180 dome is recommended over the bigger ones (Nauticam once told me that they recommend the smallest dome that gives best performance, e.g. when the 230 does not improve IQ over 180, they recommend the 180 and mark this one with asteriks). This may indicate that the Tamron lens has a strong field curvature that is in favor of the use behind a domeport and works very well UW (as you report). It looks the Tamron is a hidden gem..

You say that the Sea&Sea correction lens is not working well with the Tamron. Did you test this also?

 

Wolfgang

Edited March 25 by Architeuthis

[Interceptor121 842]

Thank you for drawing my attention to this interesting lens, that I overlooked so far (and also to Phil for making the interesting review in UWPMag in 2021)...
The Tamron 17-28mm may not be a direct competitor of the fisheye/WACP lenses, but is certainly very interesting for rectilinear WA. According to Opticallimits, the Tamron performs over the water optically better than the Sony 16-35mm GM f2.8 and (almost) as good as the new Sony PZ 16-35mm f 4.0 (a new 16-35mm mark II is soon to appear in addition)...
Not only you, but also the Nauticam port chards are in favor of the Tamron 17-28: For the Sony 16-35mm GM the 230 dome is recommended, while Nauticam recommends the 250 dome for the Sony PZ 16-35mm. Interestingly, for the Tamron 17-28mm the 180 dome is recommended over the bigger ones (Nauticam once told me that they recommend the smallest dome that gives best performance, e.g. when the 230 does not improve IQ over 180, they recommend the 180 and mark this one with asteriks). This may indicate that the Tamron lens has a strong field curvature that is in favor of the use behind a domeport and works very well UW (as you report). It looks the Tamron is a hidden gem..
You say that the Sea&Sea correction lens is not working well with the Tamron. Did you test this also?
 
Wolfgang

The tamron 17-28mm doesn’t have particular issues of field of curvature this can be seen in the top side shots at the edges but also from the mtf charts that do not have the typical ripple to correct field of curvature
The sea and sea correction lens is a field flattener it may help other lenses but this one doesn’t need it as the spherical aberration can only seen at the very extreme edges of the frame and is a consequence of the dome not the lens
See the cfwa shots in water with focus on the edge no residual spherical aberration is there
The lens has the classic drop on the meridional at the edges at f2.8 but it is already better than the sony at f/8 by the time you close to f/8 there is nothing to worry
I believe as explained that out of coincidence the nauticam 40mm extension plus the 35.5 adapter works perfectly
The suggested extension for the 230 on this lens is incorrect so I cannot comment on their chart according to my calculations the 230 needs at least 1 cm less but then the lens field of view doesn’t require it and the lens doesn’t need the extra 1cm radius either


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Architeuthis 179]

Since Massimo (and also Phil Rudin) is so fond about the Tamron 17-28mm WA lens (and Nauticam recommends the 180 domeport, over the larger ones, for this lens), I could not help and just had to order one ()...

I just was a bit sceptical and wanted to reassure that the 180 domeport is really the optimum and asked Nauticam: "...I saw in your portcharts that you recommend the 180mm domeport over the bigger ones. I conclude that the Tamron performs already very well behind the 180 domeport and 230 (or even 250) do not bring noticeable improvement?.."

Phil Burghard from Nauticam just responded: "...That is also correct, the Tamron 17-28mm does perform extremely well behind the smaller 180mm dome so that is a nice benefit to help keep things compact. .."

=> Is this not really good news?

 

Wolfgang

[Interceptor121 842]

Since Massimo (and also Phil Rudin) is so fond about the Tamron 17-28mm WA lens (and Nauticam recommends the 180 domeport, over the larger ones, for this lens), I could not help and just had to order one ()...
I just was a bit sceptical and wanted to reassure that the 180 domeport is really the optimum and asked Nauticam: "...I saw in your portcharts that you recommend the 180mm domeport over the bigger ones. I conclude that the Tamron performs already very well behind the 180 domeport and 230 (or even 250) do not bring noticeable improvement?.."
Phil Burghard from Nauticam just responded: "...That is also correct, the Tamron 17-28mm does perform extremely well behind the smaller 180mm dome so that is a nice benefit to help keep things compact. .."
=> Is this not really good news?
 
Wolfgang

The small 180 port is not much smaller than the 230
The radius is 11 instead of 12
The 230 has wider field of view
The tamron focuses at 19 cm from the sensor this is why it is the best rectilinear lens for emount
It is also not too small so the radius required is only 10 cm to focus inside the dome


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TmxDiver 47]

I would love to go with this setup, but my issue right now is that for some reason the 180mm dome port is "only" rated to 60m which is a non-starter for me. I'll ping Nauticam to figure out if that is a mistake since most of their ports are 100m.

Regards,

- brett

[Interceptor121 842]

I would love to go with this setup, but my issue right now is that for some reason the 180mm dome port is "only" rated to 60m which is a non-starter for me. I'll ping Nauticam to figure out if that is a mistake since most of their ports are 100m.
Regards,
- brett

The 180mm port is different as it doesn’t have a flat aluminium back
I think this may be the reason


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Phil Rudin 485]

The Tamron 17-28mm F/2.8 is an impressive lens for the price point (now $799.00 in the US at B&H). When I am testing a lens or another U/W system for a review I only use the manufactures recommended ports, extension and so on. This is because 99.9% of users are going to use the manufactures recommendations for ports and extensions not what they read in some internet post. I tested the Tamron 17-28 with the 180 and 230mm domes and recommended extensions for the Nauticam NA-A7R IV housing I was using at the time. I had also been loaned the S&S 77mm so called correction lens which  I also used with a step-up ring. My general conclusion regarding the S&S lens is that it works best with ports that are 230mm or greater. In ports like the Ikelite 8 inch compact a port which is about 6 inches in diameter it was horrible, not because of the port but just the lens/port configuration. For me the S&S lens now at around $600.00 US is not worth the investment if not being used with a large diameter port. 

While I believe the lions share of users are going to stay with the recommended port charts some deviation is not always a bad thing especially if you have extensions that allow you to make 5mm rather than 10mm tweaks.

If you are considering the differences between Tamron and the Sony FE PZ 16-36mm F/4 you will have several issues of consideration. First I don't do video so my reviews are from a stills point of view. With the Sony PZ lens you don't need a zoom gear to use the lens, while I would chose the 230mm dome over a 180mmm dome I think the recommended (by Nauticam) 250mm port is overkill and you would see little difference between 250 and 230mm. The PZ lens can be used from 28mm to 35mm with the WACP-1 while the Tamron lens would not be recommended for that wet lens. Both the Tamron and Sony lenses make great topside travel lenses.

Red cushion sea star or West Indies sea star (Oreaster reticulatus). Spawning. Blue Heron Bridge, Florida, Sony A7R IV, Tamron 17-28mm F/2.8 at 28mm, Nauticam housing, Nauticam 180mm dome port, S&S ICL, Two Inon Z-330 flashes, ISO-200, F/10, 1/125th Sec.

The attached photo of the free diver coming out of near zero visibility was taken using the LCD and just pointing the camera at the motion I was seeing as the diver began to emerged. The face and eye detection tracking went directly to the divers face as I depressed the shutter without me being able to assess if he was in focus. The result is a tack sharp photo taken in extremely low lighting conditions with a rapidly moving subject tracking directly at the camera. Sony A7R IV, Tamron 17-28mm F/2.8 at 17mm, Nauticam housing, Nauticam 230mm dome port, S&S ICL, Two Inon Z-330 flashes, ISO-200, F/10, 1/60th Sec. The crop is at over 200%.

 

 

    

Edited April 6 by Phil Rudin

[Radioactive_rhino 1]

This was a super informative write-up to read as a relative newbie. I still am personally struggling a bit to decide if I want to go the fisheye and dome port or WWL-1 route in m4/3, and write-ups like the above are really helpful to me. Looking forward to reading your future work as well!