PHIL RUDIN
Contributor
I think it is quite clear that the 10-18 zoom is a much sharper lens than the 16mm pancake, an $850.00 V. $250.00 lens should be better. Adding the W/A or fisheye adapter to the 16 pancake makes the results even worse. To give you an idea of the difference go to photozone.de and go to lens reviews. Look at the NEX lenses and see the difference in the two lenses.
Two make the Ziess 12mm lens work in any of the Nauticam housings would require a two part port. A port plate to mount to the housing followed by the lens and then the the dome would need to be mounted to the port plate. Nauticam has this design in the works for mounting a DSLR macro lens to the system which is also to fat to fit the port mount.
Regarding the ports for the 10-18 zoom, I have attached photos of the ZEN Underwater 170mm port mounted to the Nauticam NA-NEX5R housing with the 16 and fisheye adapter on the camera. While this optical glass port is more expensive than the Nauticam 7 inch port it can be used with an expanding number of lenses. With the 10-18 F/4 zoom I use a 20mm port extension, but without the port extension you can also mount the 16 with fisheye or W/A adapters, the Ziess 24mm, the 18-55 zoom and more. If you add up the cost of the Nauticam ports to house those lenses the $999.00 cost does not seem so great. While both domes are larger the 10-18 will just not work without a port this size. If it could Nauticam would have just used the six inch port already made for the Panasonic 7-14 zoom for M43 cameras. Another thing not addressed in the thread is how much better the larger ports (both Nauticam and ZEN) will work for split (over/under) images. I have attached two photos using the 16 and fisheye adapter with the ZEN 170mm port. Images using the 10-18 can be found in the Ziess 12mm thread below.
Phil Rudin