Wet Wide Angle Lenses don't work with 4/3 or DSLR Systems, Example Pictures

[mjh]

A couple different threads about people wanting to use Wet Wide Angle lenses with 4/3, interchangeable lens systems. In general this does NOT work or the DSLR crowd would have it figured out by now. These posts often are refering to the Olympus 4/3 housings using the Lens Holder ring. The Lens Holder is really meant to hold Diopters for Macro shooting. You can get very good results with diopters for your Macro shooting.

For those who may be wondering the following is the Olympus Lens Holder. It presses over the standard flat port that most Oly housings employ.
Lenses & Filters :: Lens Holders & Adapters :: Olympus Macro Lens Adapter -

To take advantage of the 4/3 camera's picture quality you should pair them with some of the quality wide angle lenses like the Oly 9-18mm, Panasonic 7-14mm or Panisonic 8mm fisheye. Yes, you will have to purchase a wide angle port to compliment the lens. Each lens has their supporters.

The following where clearly, or not so clearly as you can see, taken in our shop just to give you a rough idea. As you can see the Oly 14-42mm kit lens works best without a Wet Wide angle lens attached. The following shots were taken the the Olympus E-PM1, EPO6 Housing and Olympus Lens Holder.

14-42 Lens without a Wide Angle Wet Lens


14-42 Lens with Lens Holder, Sea & Sea M67 Wide Angle Wet Lens, 100 degrees (this would be similar to the Ike W-30 and Inon H100)


14-42mm Lens at 14mm with Lens Holder and UWL28 144 degree Fisheye Wet Lens

 

[herbdb]

Thanks for the expert info. Guess I need to save for a new lens.

 

[unclebob]

Unfortunately, above-water performance tells you little about below-water performance. In fact, it's desirable for the edges of the image to be soft or very soft above water.

 

[mjh]

The main issue of this post is about vignetting. True that these lenses are designed for use underwater and should perform much better. Vignetting will remain a problem when trying to use wet lenses on interchangeable lens cameras. Again if it was possible/desirable the DSLR folks would be doing it today. Really did not even touch on the increased chromatic aberration and blurring by attempting this.

As to it being "desirable" to have soft edges for a image...this is a matter of artistic taste. I think most high end shooters would disagree. When buying wide angle lenses (wet or dry) most experienced shooters look for the sharpest edges/corners possible, for the money. In underwater photography many feel that given wide angle lenses are often used in blue water situations where it is hard to tell if edges are sharp that it can be less of a factor.

If you are referring to bokeh that is a different topic and technique.

All that said I am sure there are exceptions and combinations people have made "work". But the gist of this post was the reason you buy an interchangeable lens camera is to take advantage of the great lenses out there. If you want flexibility than there are great compact systems that wet lenses work with. I shoot the RX100/Nauticam Housing/Wide and Macro Wet lenses and love it. I think the results from it are on par with DSLRs we were shooting just a few years ago.

Taken with the RX100 and a Inon100 Wet WA Lens/Dome. IMHO as good as anything I shot with my Nikon D200 and Tokina 10-17mm

 

[Ahmed Yahya]

nice article
do you have any underwater results ?

i remembered one more thing, Olympus provides 2 housings for their E-PM1: EP06 and EP06L.
the L type has threaded lens port that allows WA wet lens without lens mount ( theoretically )

it would be great if you can provide some UW test shots, it

 

[girellator]

If I planed to use my micro 43 with the 14-42 mm lense and external wide wet lenses , I would not have buy an OMD but directly a Sony RX 100 ( one or two ) or a Canon G 13 OR 16 , or the successor of my so beloved Canon S90 ( 100 110 and so on ..) We can get very good pictures with that kind of camera , and external wide angle lenses are perfectly adapted for these !!
Her are some wide angle pictures , the first one of each have been taken with the Canon S90 and UWL 04 , and the second with the OMD and 8 mm Panasonic ( sorry there is also one macro shot )

S90 vs omd - a set on Flickr

Sometime I wonder if it was absolutely neccessary to spend all that money , for all that OMD stuff ..

 

[PHIL RUDIN]

I think the more important question here is why would you want to buy an interchangeable lens camera of any type and then not interchange the lenses. Most of the "kit" lenses that come with these cameras are average at best, the Olympus 12-50 and 12-40 being exceptions. Adding an accessory lens to a kit lens is only going to further reduce image quality. If your goal is to use only "wet" lenses for wide angle then a fixed lens camera makes much more sense because many of these cameras come with excellent glass.

The next issue is cost, wet lenses like the Inon UWL-H100 28M67 Type II at over $500.00 and the Super Wide dome lens unit II at around $450.00 are about as much as the Olympus 9-18 zoom. Most already own a port that will work with the 9-18 and to use the Super Wide dome (UWL-H110 and super dome combo) the cost is as high as buying the Panasonic 7-14 zoom although without the needed port.

By the way the UWL-H100 type II and the Super Wide Dome both work with the E-PM1/PT-EP06L and the E-PL3/PT-EP05L housings with 14-42mm kit lens. You must have the type II lens and the L-type Olympus housing. So you pay the extra cost of the L housing and you are not to far off from the cost of adding the 9-18mm zoom and the ZEN dome port.

For most that already own other brands and/or types of WET wide lenses and housings without the built-in 67mm threads the cost would increase even more to make the wet lens work with the 14-42 lens system.

The bottom line is that you can not have a one size fits all lens that covers everything from super wide to macro on an interchangeable lens camera, the Olympus 12-50 with macro comes as close as any lens on the market.

If using a verity of wet lenses all on one dive is your goal then I would consider a great compact like the Sony RX-100.

Phil Rudin

 

[dfx]

As to it being "desirable" to have soft edges for a image...this is a matter of artistic taste.

What he meant was that it's desirable for the edges to be soft above water, as that effect would disappear under water. Wet lenses are designed to be used under water and they don't perform or even behave the same above water due to the difference in refractive index water vs air. Trying out a wet lens above water tells you almost nothing about what the results look like under water.

 

[Ahmed Yahya]

If I planed to use my micro 43 with the 14-42 mm lense and external wide wet lenses , I would not have buy an OMD but directly a Sony RX 100 ( one or two ) or a Canon G 13 OR 16 , or the successor of my so beloved Canon S90 ( 100 110 and so on ..) We can get very good pictures with that kind of camera , and external wide angle lenses are perfectly adapted for these !!
Her are some wide angle pictures , the first one of each have been taken with the Canon S90 and UWL 04 , and the second with the OMD and 8 mm Panasonic ( sorry there is also one macro shot )


S90 vs omd - a set on Flickr

Sometime I wonder if it was absolutely neccessary to spend all that money , for all that OMD stuff ..

great collection
have you noticed any difference between the two cameras in pic quality ?

 

[girellator]

Of course , the picture quality of the OMD is much better than the one taken with the Canon S90
But to answer to your question ( that you did sent me on Flickr ) concerning the EPM1 vs Sony RX 100 , I'm not so sure than the winner could not be the Sony . It's a very good camera , with an excellent sensor , and the EPM1 has not the same image quality than the OMD .. So if you have already some good wetlenses , why not choose the Sony a very high end compact camera

Nb I had an EPM1 before that Ihave sold a few months ago , but I have never used the Sony , so , ask also to other people.