Inon UWL-100 vs UN PWC-01 wide angle

[roswin]

I saw that most of the Oly friends are using the Inon WAL. Instead I read the results of a comparison between the Inon WAL and the UN WAL in which it seems the that latter could be even a better lens in terms of distorsion. Is there anyone who has experience with this lens (by the way, suggested by Olympus)?

 

[Dee]

The Olympus lenses have developed a problem with the coating on the lenses and those who had them had to replace them with something else.

I use a S&S WA 'L' lens. No distortion, no blurry edges. With the 5050 I do have to bump the zoom in a bit to eliminate a faint vignet shadow in the upper left corner but that's no biggie.

 

[roswin]

What do you mean with coating of the lenses? This is a big problem. I want to buy an WAL but also a macro lens with maximal magnification considering that my C-50 zoom isn't strong in macro pics. The "stronger" lens is indeed an Olympus one PC-01 or Epoque while the Inons are less performing. What do u suggest?

 

[jlyle]

My PWC-01 is in pristine shape after more than a year of use (100+ dives). I also bought the Oly PCU-01 macro lens adapter and have been very happy with it.

Can anyone confirm, from personal experience, that there have been coating problems with the PWC-01?

Chris (batray) had one that developed a leak, but that's the only one that I know of.

 

[Dee]

I think I read the reports of the coating problems on DDN. Sorry I can't say from personal experience. I apologize if I'm wrong.

 

[jlyle]

Dee,
I'm just as wrong. I, too, have told other people that I had heard there were coating problems with the PWC-01.. But, before posting above, I did a quick search on DDN and could only turn up Chris' posts about problems with his Oly WAL. If there were additional people who complained about the coatings, I couldn't find the posts. Maybe the lens isn't so bad afterall and Chris' leak was an anomoly. I like mine.

Jim (jlyle)

 

[Gilligan]

roswin,
If you decide on an Inon WAL be sure and get the right one for your housing. There is a Type 1 and Type 2. They are the same lens except for the size of the ring at the mounting point. The Type 1 sits closer to the camera housing lens port and requires an adapter ring that replaces the housing ring on some Oly housings. The Type 2 mounts directly to the housing.
Whether to use the Type 1 or 2 lens is dictated by both the housing and the model camera inside the housing as in the case of the Oly PT-010 housing which accomodated more than one model camera.
There is a chart on Yuzo's site that lists several cameras and housings. After you get to his site click on "Add on lens" then scroll down and look for "Please check which lens is useable for your camera and housing" and the link will list the cameras and housings.

 

[ReyeR]

I have the lens and I can confirm that mine has developed coating problems. It appears that the coating is very delicate and needs a lot more care. In hindsight I should have rinsed with fresh water and wiped dry as soon as I got out after EVERY dive (boat or shore) - I didn't between dives and often it would be 30-60 mins before I rinsed it after the last dive.

The optics of the PWC are superb, but I would say the Inon is a more hardy lens.

 

[roswin]

I understand that the coating problem is related just to the wide angle lens and not the macro one. Is it right? By the way, I'd really like to make good macro pics but my camera is a little weak in that (c-50 zoom). Which lens do you suggest? What about the "vignetting" effect?

 

[jlyle]

I have the lens and I can confirm that mine has developed coating problems. It appears that the coating is very delicate and needs a lot more care. In hindsight I should have rinsed with fresh water and wiped dry as soon as I got out after EVERY dive (boat or shore) - I didn't between dives and often it would be 30-60 mins before I rinsed it after the last dive.

The optics of the PWC are superb, but I would say the Inon is a more hardy lens.

Okay, that's two lenses, Chris' & Reye's, that have had problems, any more?