Olympus 8mm fisheye vs Nauticam MWL-1

[jayceebutler]

Does anyone have experience with both the Olympus/Panasonic 8mm in a dome port AND the Nauticam MWL-1 with a 30mm macro?

Assuming one already has a 30mm macro and port, what are the pros/cons between a traditional 8mm fisheye + dome port, and the Nauticam MWL-1 wet lens, given that the price between the two setups is similar.

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 8mm f/1.8 Fisheye PRO=$1000
Nauticam Mini Extension Ring 30 =$230
Zen DP 100-N85 Zen 100mm Dome = $900
Total = $2130

vs

Nauticam MWL-1 = $2130

 

[scubaozy]

I have not direct experience on neither systems but 8mm 1.8 is the best lens you can get, and can do 2 full stops better than the second best Panasonic 3.5. I would not even bother comparing if the other set is same price.

 

[Interceptor121]

The MWL-1 is not a fisheye lens so the comparison is not meaningful
With regards to the comment Olympus vs Panasonic you don't shoot wide aperture underwater and in fact there is no practical difference between the two lenses once you get to f/4. In most cases you will shoot f/5.6 with an 8mm fisheye

 

[bvanant]

I think that the MWL is optimized for full frame. I have the 8 mm fisheye and love it, we also have the WWL and I prefer the 8 mm for wide shots. The advantage of using both macro and wide is a great theoretical advantage but for me at least I need to focus on one or the other on a given dive.
Bill

 

[scubaozy]

Olympus is the better and faster lense, whether you use it wide open or not. I rather have the option. Considering fisheye has a pretty good dof, I can imagine someone might go down to 1.8.

 

[Interceptor121]

Olympus is the better and faster lense, whether you use it wide open or not. I rather have the option. Considering fisheye has a pretty good dof, I can imagine someone might go down to 1.8.

It does not work underwater due to dome port optics.
The wider you can shoot before it gets really crass is f/4 on any MFT body. The olympus is only worth it if you use wide apertures on land. Besides it would be better to use a slightly larger dome like the 4.33 acrylic as 100 mm is really small.
It is not a matter of reading internet reviews for generic use this is underwater use fast lenses are not a requirement for wide angle or fisheye

 

[scubaozy]

It does not work underwater due to dome port optics.
The wider you can shoot before it gets really crass is f/4 on any MFT body

This is merely a claim without merit nor a reference. There are top side and uw reviews if you google. Pictures of plastic bottles here Test Pictures taken in a tank with 1.8 and 7.4 respectively. They look ok to me. Even 1.8 was only usable on the top side, Oly is still better lens (because everyone else says so). This has gone way off topic btw, I don’t have endless time
My opinion is option with 30mm and 8mm Olympus is the way to go. Cracking specialized lenses.

 

[Interceptor121]

This is merely a claim without merit nor a reference. There are top side and uw reviews if you google. Pictures of plastic bottles here Test Pictures taken in a tank with 1.8 and 7.4 respectively. They look ok to me. Even 1.8 was only usable on the top side, Oly is still better lens (because everyone else says so). This has gone way off topic btw, I don’t have endless time
My opinion is option with 30mm and 8mm Olympus is the way to go. Cracking specialized lenses.

read the article you mention yourself all the underwater pictures are taken at f/5.6 f/8 f/11
You don’t buy a fisheye to shoot a bottle on the table and an object in the centre with nothing around it is not representative of an underwater close focus wide angle scene
If you wanted a real chance of shooting wide assuming you have shots that require it then you would get the 140mm glass dome not the zen 100 nor the 4.33. With 7 cm radius you would have a chance to go wide otherwise not worth it
For me that is the only combination that would make sense with a larger investment

 

[scubaozy]

Hmm, perhaps you should read it again. I quote (copy paste)
“
Pictures 13 and 14 with the plastic bottle and shells are taken in a little plastic container filled with water with the Olympus F1.8 on the EPL-5 in a PEN housing (PT-EP 10) and dome (4 inch Precision). I used a Zen 2.5 cm extension ring between the dome and the housing. Aperture settings F1.8 and F 7.1 respectively. Background slightly blurred at @ 1.8
“
Btw, nobody asked you about the dome size. Instead of producing useless information, help him. Why he should get one system over another.

 

[Interceptor121]

Hmm, perhaps you should read it again. I quote (copy paste)
“
Pictures 13 and 14 with the plastic bottle and shells are taken in a little plastic container filled with water with the Olympus F1.8 on the EPL-5 in a PEN housing (PT-EP 10) and dome (4 inch Precision). I used a Zen 2.5 cm extension ring between the dome and the housing. Aperture settings F1.8 and F 7.1 respectively. Background slightly blurred at @ 1.8
“
Btw, nobody asked you about the dome size. Instead of producing useless information, help him. Why he should get one system over another.

I am being helpful while you seem to have zero experience with domes or lenses and pretend to give advice
Of the options he is thinking about none are good
If he wants to stick to the olympus lens for some reason then it makes sense to get a larger dome otherwise the performance wont be good enough. It is pointless to spend more money on the lens and use a tiny dome. The dome plays a much more important role than the lens itself at wide apertures
So the op can get a Panasonic 8mm in acrylic dome and will do just fine and be more compact or get the olympus with the 17 extension and the 140mm dome if he wants the best possible option
With regards to the article you referenced the real in water shots are at f/5.6 or smaller the shots in his sink are irrelevant and the writer says it himself that in most cases you wontt be able to see any discernible difference compared to a Panasonic in acrylic dome
By the way have you ever shot a fisheye lens in a dome or not?