Ikelite 8" Dome

[james 0]

Hi,

 

I would not recommend using an 8" dome port with the 100mm lens. You won't get as much magnification, but more importantly, there's a VERY good chance that you'll scratch the dome when you get in close for macro shooting.

 

I would plan on purchasing one dome port, with appropriate extension rings, (I doubt the same ring will be ideal for use with BOTH the 10-22 and the 18-55) and one flat port. That's how most housings work - two port-fronts and a bunch of extension rings and gears.

 

Cheers

James

[UWphotoNewbie 1]

James,

 

Thanks for testing the 15mm with this port. You state that the extension ring is a few mm too long.

 

If the sharpness looks good and it doesn't vigenette then what is the problem with using this extension ring?

 

Also, with the 18-55mm extension ring you have, how close is the donought on the back side of the dome to the port snaps? Can you still get your fingers in there? I'm assuming that to use the 10.5mm you will need a shorter extension ring. Does it look possible to use a shorter extension and still work the snaps?

 

Just trying to budget (and prepare my wife) for the three major UW purchases I have planned this year.

 

1) MF/AF port for the 105mm

2) iTTL conversion (when available)

3) Port for the 10.5mm (could be the 8" dome)

 

If I get the 8" dome it would be nice to move to one port and set of extensions for my WA lenses. I currently have 3 dome ports and the 10.5mm 5503.15 would make four.

 

Thanks

[kdietz 0]

FYI...the 10.5mm will not work with the 8" dome....even with the shortest extention

[james 0]

Hi Newbie,

 

I don't have an extension ring for the 18-55. I have a ring that Ike sent me to test with the 10-22 and I think it is the proper length (based on my test results) so I'm assuming Ikelite will put it in their port chart and it will be "official."

 

With the ring I have, there is just enough clearance to latch and unlatch the port. I doubt you could "bring the port closer" to the housing, without altering the doughnut design. This is why the current design doesn't work with the 10.5mm Nikkor.

 

RE the 15mm Sigma: I have used this lens in the past w/ an Aquatica housing and the lens sticks a bit further into the port. Based on my experience, that looked like the right spot for the lens with respect to the radius of curvature. That's not to say that when I used the dome on the Ikelite housing yesterday and the lens didn't stick out as far that the image wasn't good. I think the sample I posted looks good, but it may because fisheye lenses are very forgiving in this regard.

 

Cheers

James

[Dixter 0]

James, like you say... no 100MM in the 8" port...

 

I was thinking I would only need two ports for my lens selection at this time....

 

The 100mm macro port and the 8" port for wide shots using 10-22 or 18-55

 

thanx for posting your tests

[Dixter 0]

Wow, Check out some of the Shark pictures that was posted yesterday....

 

I'd have to say that the Ike 8" port did very well...

 

Now If I could only get B&H to ship me my housing.....

 

Already have the large port and the 10-22mm lens, can't wait to go play with it...

 

Its first trip is going to be Komodo..

[UWphotoNewbie 1]

Karl,

 

I imagine you were using the 8" dome on the trip? What did you think? I looked at the site quickly but couldn't find the photos with the 8" dome. Do you have any examples? How does it compare to the standard ports in real-world shooting?

 

Great shots everyone!

[kdietz 0]

I used the 8" dome for all my photos...all I shot was WA with the Sigma 15 and the 12-24

 

I thought the performance was better than what I usually get with the smaller dome.

 

The larger dome makes the rig positive....1 ended up with a 2 pound weight on the tray to make the rig neutral underwater....the dome always wanted to tilt up, but it really isn't that bad unless you are shooting a lot one handed....the dome is unprotected and easy to scuff....minor scratches come off easily with toothpaste or mild acrylic polish....a fisheye shade would be nice to have

 

FWIW, I'll always use this dome from now on....except for the 10.5mm

 

My webpage should be updated in the next day or two with more shots

 

Karl

[waja 0]

The larger dome makes the rig positive....1 ended up with a 2 pound weight on the tray to make the rig neutral underwater....the dome always wanted to tilt up, but it really isn't that bad unless you are shooting a lot one handed....the dome is unprotected and easy to scuff....minor scratches come off easily with toothpaste or mild acrylic polish....a  fisheye shade would be nice to have

 

Karl

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Maybe the Ike 8" SE should have a 1.5lb fisheye shade to both balance the camera and protect the dome. Karl, is your rig so positive bouyant that it would float away without the 2-lb weight?

[richorn 0]

always use this dome from now on....except for the 10.5mm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why wouldn't you use it for the 10.5, and what is the option?

 

I use this dome on the Aquatica with the S2, and was told that the only change I need to make for my 10.5 is to removes the "big" shade and use a shorter extension (or none, can't remember).

 

Also, Aquatica does make shades for both the 12-24 configuration and the 10.5 configuration. Wont these fit on the Ike dome setup? When I looked at the Ike setup last week on a friends rig, the outer diameter looked the same to me...

[kdietz 0]

Richard,

 

Because of the parts needed to interface between the Ike housing and Aquatica dome, the shortest extension will still cause vignetting with the 10.5mm...it can't get as close to the housing as it can with an Aquatica housing...bummer, but the Ike 10.5mm dome works very well IMHO

 

The Aquatica shades will work....I just need to BUY one

 

Karl

[richorn 0]

duhh... forgot about the "built-in" extension.

 

Don't think the lens shade is going to correct your weight issue, but it wont hurt either!

[kdietz 0]

I missed Waja's question.........YES, the rig would slowly rise and float away without the extra 2 pound weight....rig still trys to tilt up, but it's not too bad unless you are doing a lot of one handed shooting

[scubag 0]

I don't know if this helps anyone, but here are a couple images shot last month with the Canon 20d, 10-22mm zoom at 10mm, Ikelite housing and acrylic dome #5503.50 All these are uncropped shot at F8 with strobes (except the starfish shot at F11). Corner sharpness is quite good, perhaps a pinch soft in the upper right hand corner at F8. Original images shot RAW (CR2) but these are medium jpegs 800 x 533 pixels.

 

Doug

[TomStack 0]

This is why acrylic is primarily used in

Hey all,

 

For what it's worth, I read years ago about acrylic optical properties being superior to glass,

read all:

 

Scubag: really nice shots! but...still some falloff/corner softening. the Canon 10-22 is an

amazing lens, but corner sharpness still eludes me. We're doing pool (awggggg!) on Friday

AM with various port extensions and hope to put the issue to rest!

 

Tom Stack

http://www.tomstackphoto.com

 

applications that take advantage of its superior clarity, scratch

resistance and UV stability characteristics. Acrylic is also more

transparent than glass, lighter in weight, and is used in many

applications where glass has been traditionally used.

 

The exceptional weatherability of acrylic also makes it ideal for

most outdoor applications where transparent materials are

required. Acrylic is very rigid, providing stability in design.

 

Perhaps the most outstanding feature of acrylic materials is their

optical clarity. Acrylic transmits more light than any other

material. This makes it an excellent choice for lenses and other

applications where optical quality is required.

http://www.plasticsmachining.com/magazine/...pp-acrylic.html

 

Tom Stack

http://www.tomstackphoto.com

[james 0]

I like the way they say "superior scratch resistance." LOL - superior to what, butter!?!?!?

 

Cheers

James

[Rocha 0]

I like the way they say "superior scratch resistance." LOL - superior to what, butter!?!?!?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[shark8matt 0]

Quick question - when ordering an aquatica shade for use with the ike 8" and the canon 10-22 efs - I neew to order the WA shade (Aquatica 18482) or will I be able to use the fisheye shade with it as well. I like the fisheye shade beacause it sticks out a bit further than the WA shade - more protection...

 

regards...

 

- MP

[kdietz 0]

I would get the fisheye shade....the WA shade is huge....I'll sell you mine for $50 if you want one

 

Karl

[Peter Schulz 1]

Anybody have a picture of what the Aquatica dome port shades look like?

[Viz'art 24]

Go to http://www.aquatica.ca/catalog.htm#

 

go to product category then click on dome shades & covers

 

Regards

[james 0]

Here's a photo of me using the 8" dome and wideangle shade (photo Eric Cheng):

 

 

The fisheye shade is much more minimalist, but doesn't provide as much coverage. I recommend the WA shade for the 12-24 and 10-22

 

Cheers

James

[Peter Schulz 1]

1. Thanks for the pictures guys. I like the big shade for the protection it offers.

 

2. Karl, does the wide angle shade vignette with the Aquatica port on the Ikelite housing when using the Sigma 15mm Fish Eye?

[kdietz 0]

Peter, I'm having a senior moment ....I just can't remember if I used the WA shade with the 15mm...it flooded on the first shark dive so I didn't get to use it but once....my housing is off to Ikelite or I would check it out for you tonight....I'm fairly certain that I had the shade with the 15mm, but I'm not 100%

 

James, do you remember if the shade was on when I handed you my flooded housing?

 

Karl

[james 0]

I don't think it was on there Karl.

 

Cheers

James