Sony 30 Mm F3.5 Macro - Any Good Under Water? Alternatives?

[ilars]

Anyone who have been using the 30mm macro together with a subsee +10 or any other wet lens?
How is the 30mm in comparison to the 16-50 at 50mm in terms of magnification?

I feel the 16-50 even with a subsee +10 is not enough for me.

Happy New Year to all of you Sony Snappers!

 

[Ashantiashanti]

Hi again,
as far as I am aware, the 35mm f1.8 has the exact same dimensions than the 30 mm f3.5, so it should fit just fine and be close to the glass of the port. I have used the dome lens briefly, but not enough to make a statement, really.

What do you plan to take videos of? The focus light on my strobe (Sea&Sea YS-110) is not very strong and is really just suited to give enough light for focusing on relatively close objects. I'm not updated on video lights, but there should be a range of different lights that are much stronger and wide angled. I am sure others will be able to fill in with their experience here

Thanks for that Lars! The strobe would be used for anything in general.

So now a question about lenses. I contacted Meikon and can confirm that the following lenses fit:

Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS (Manual zoom available, set camera to autofocus)
Sony E 20mm F2.8 (Autofocus only)
Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS (Autofocus only)
Sigma 19mm F2.8 DN Art (Autofocus only)
Sigma 30mm F2.8 EX DN (Autofocus only)

Have anyone tried the different ones and seen a significance difference? For example the 35mm 1.8 is a great lens with wonderful reviews, but it might not do much of a difference in the UW housing. The reason for why I ask is that I recently bought the A6000 with the kit lens and the 35mm 1.8, and I am considering selling the 35mm as I have the kit lens.

Meikon also commented that the 19mm 2.8 is very popular with their housing UW.

 

[Mattis Persson]

Ashantiashanti, Lars,

I might fill in with my limited experience here. I've so far only used the kit lens uw, but own the Sigma 30 2.8 and plan to get the 19. I've read that others have been disappointed in the 19 for uw use but I'm hopeful given the results above water with the 30.

I mainly do video so I don't have strobes, only lights (2 x Hi-max v11 @2500 lumen). The only video I've produced so far is this: (due to copyright it's only available on computers, seemingly no other platforms). The video is rather long and chronological and gets better throughout, both due to better conditions in Wakatobi than Raja Ampat (though the latter has better diving imo) and me getting better at filming. The wa shots were done with the meikon fisheye/dome. The end, most notably the scorpion fishes, are filmed with the Opteka 10+ macro conversion lens. It is very cheap and not made for underwater use, but held up with no issues whatsoever. It might be an option to use with the Sigma 30, or 19 for that matter. I plan on getting at least one more Opteka, and stack them for 20+.

Overall I find the results to be acceptable if not great, given the low cost of the setup (taking into account my faults as a first-timer). But I do look forward to trying the Sigma lenses as well. I concur with the statement of the somewhat subpar low light capabilities, but this is only a problem with wa where the lights cannot reach the subjects.

I would very much like to hear if anyone else have any experience with the Sigmas, especially the 19, on the a6000 or otherwise.

Best, Mattis

 

[Ashantiashanti]

Ashantiashanti, Lars,

I might fill in with my limited experience here. I've so far only used the kit lens uw, but own the Sigma 30 2.8 and plan to get the 19. I've read that others have been disappointed in the 19 for uw use but I'm hopeful given the results above water with the 30.

I mainly do video so I don't have strobes, only lights (2 x Hi-max v11 @2500 lumen). The only video I've produced so far is this: (due to copyright it's only available on computers, seemingly no other platforms). The video is rather long and chronological and gets better throughout, both due to better conditions in Wakatobi than Raja Ampat (though the latter has better diving imo) and me getting better at filming. The wa shots were done with the meikon fisheye/dome. The end, most notably the scorpion fishes, are filmed with the Opteka 10+ macro conversion lens. It is very cheap and not made for underwater use, but held up with no issues whatsoever. It might be an option to use with the Sigma 30, or 19 for that matter. I plan on getting at least one more Opteka, and stack them for 20+.

Overall I find the results to be acceptable if not great, given the low cost of the setup (taking into account my faults as a first-timer). But I do look forward to trying the Sigma lenses as well. I concur with the statement of the somewhat subpar low light capabilities, but this is only a problem with wa where the lights cannot reach the subjects.

I would very much like to hear if anyone else have any experience with the Sigmas, especially the 19, on the a6000 or otherwise.

Best, Mattis

Heya Mattis. I plan on getting the sigma 19mm as it is quite wide and cheap =) In some months I can let you know how it is.
And what a great video! I love the music. I have some questions, the scorpion fish at 06:48 did you use Opteka's macro for that, or is it from the kit lens + dome? Also the crocodile fish at 08:30. And have you done any color correcting with this footage or only the lights?

Edit:
Which one of these Opteka's did you use?
1) http://tinyurl.com/j2ckdqb
2) http://tinyurl.com/z3a84q2
There's also a much cheaper one: http://tinyurl.com/zhjt6c2

 

[Mattis Persson]

Hey Ashantiashanti,

Thank you! Learning by doing... Would love to hear from you experience, if you decide to get the 19 or not. I might beat you to it, but probably won't be able to go on any diving holidays within the next 4-5 months unfortunately.

Both the scorpion and crocodile fish you mention are shot with the kit lens (@50 mm if I'm not mistaken) without the dome or Opteka. This is pretty much as close as you'd get with the kit, as you may notice in the shots... I never thought the Opteka would hold up so I didn't use it until the very end.

I'm also located in Europe (Sweden) but I ordered it from B&H and their shipping was very low. Also, the low cost means no duties: Opteka 67mm 10x High Definition II Professional Macro OPT6710X The Opteka is supposed to be very good for the price so I would go for that (multiple elements are far superior).

Do note that it MAY not hold up - perhaps I was lucky for a few dives... But given the low cost it might just be worth it

 

[Ashantiashanti]

Hey Ashantiashanti,

Thank you! Learning by doing... Would love to hear from you experience, if you decide to get the 19 or not. I might beat you to it, but probably won't be able to go on any diving holidays within the next 4-5 months unfortunately.

Both the scorpion and crocodile fish you mention are shot with the kit lens (@50 mm if I'm not mistaken) without the dome or Opteka. This is pretty much as close as you'd get with the kit, as you may notice in the shots... I never thought the Opteka would hold up so I didn't use it until the very end.

I'm also located in Europe (Sweden) but I ordered it from B&H and their shipping was very low. Also, the low cost means no duties: Opteka 67mm 10x High Definition II Professional Macro OPT6710X The Opteka is supposed to be very good for the price so I would go for that (multiple elements are far superior).

Do note that it MAY not hold up - perhaps I was lucky for a few dives... But given the low cost it might just be worth it

Sjovt, jeg er dansk!

But I'll stick to English so others can follow ;-)

I am amazed by the said scorpion and crocodile fish. Such great detail and quality from the kit lens imo. Have you done a lot of color correcting afterwards, or are the colors in the video just from the usage of lights? And could you direct me to where you got the lights?

Also do you think there is a difference between the Opteka lens you got, and the Opteka macro lens in the Opteka kit I linked to?

 

[Mattis Persson]

Trevligt!

Yes the kit lens does achieve surprisingly good results, and it is convenient to be able to go from 16 mm to (if the dome is removed; fine since it's a wet lens) to about 65 mm (roughly 30% magnification) in a single dive.

I've done relatively little post processing on the macro shots, the lights do most of the work. Minor color balance and a minimum of sharpening and contrast - typically what I do with photos of terra firma. Lights are imo compulsory for video. Unfortunately, since they tend to be, quite frankly, ridiculously expensive for what they are. I own what I found to be the most light for you're money, Hi-Max V11, made by a small but very serious (divers themselves it seems) Chinese company called Hi-Max. Hi-max Might seem as I push these but believe me I've gone through cheap light purchased on eBay and they are simply not worth the trouble. I have two, each with max output @2400 lumen, 140° floodlight. I believe they are $160 a pop plus shipping, batteries and chargers included. Might seem a lot but the competition is about twice that and I don't really see how one could go without lights to be honest (for macro).

Hm the Opteka in the second link seems to be the same as the one I have (though cheaper to buy from B&H). The first have a single element instead of two, which is inferior (you may want to Google this) but does have the benefit of not risking flooding. Can't say anything about the ones in the last link more than that they are single elements. There are so many macro lenses in the market. Most except for those manufactured for uw use tend to be cheap. I tried the opteka because it was cheap and supposedly good. Very happy it held up

 

[Mattis Persson]

I might add that I own a red filter (came with the meikon housing) but haven't used it. I can't really figure out whether filters or ex post correction is better (for me). I do recommend the dome though. The thread for screwing it on in the water seems somewhat low quality but the optics seems great for the price. There's the obvious downsides with this setup but it all comes down to the fact that the competition is so much more expensive I cannot justify the upsides at this point (maybe one or two dive trips a year).

 

[Ashantiashanti]

Trevligt!

Yes the kit lens does achieve surprisingly good results, and it is convenient to be able to go from 16 mm to (if the dome is removed; fine since it's a wet lens) to about 65 mm (roughly 30% magnification) in a single dive.

I've done relatively little post processing on the macro shots, the lights do most of the work. Minor color balance and a minimum of sharpening and contrast - typically what I do with photos of terra firma. Lights are imo compulsory for video. Unfortunately, since they tend to be, quite frankly, ridiculously expensive for what they are. I own what I found to be the most light for you're money, Hi-Max V11, made by a small but very serious (divers themselves it seems) Chinese company called Hi-Max. Hi-max Might seem as I push these but believe me I've gone through cheap light purchased on eBay and they are simply not worth the trouble. I have two, each with max output @2400 lumen, 140° floodlight. I believe they are $160 a pop plus shipping, batteries and chargers included. Might seem a lot but the competition is about twice that and I don't really see how one could go without lights to be honest (for macro).

Hm the Opteka in the second link seems to be the same as the one I have (though cheaper to buy from B&H). The first have a single element instead of two, which is inferior (you may want to Google this) but does have the benefit of not risking flooding. Can't say anything about the ones in the last link more than that they are single elements. There are so many macro lenses in the market. Most except for those manufactured for uw use tend to be cheap. I tried the opteka because it was cheap and supposedly good. Very happy it held up

You must have gotten the lights really cheap! The cheapest I can find is on alibaba, for 169usd + 122usd shipping to DK.. The only two options I can do with are:
1) This cheap setup to mount on horse shoe thingy ontop of housing. http://tinyurl.com/hrvko6a However, there is risk of backscatter.
2) which costs over 3x as much, http://tinyurl.com/gs8fpgr however I need to find someone in the UK to deliver to.

Regarding the Opteka, I'll go for the one you got and try my luck too! I'm guessing you weren't too deep while in Raja + Wakatobi? I'm guessing max 20-25m? I'm thinking regarding the risk of one of the Opteka lenses bursting due to pressure.

 

[Mattis Persson]

You should contact Hi-max directly through their website, shipping should be something like $35 (for two, small but quite heavy boxes). They are very service minded, even uses whatsapp.

The first link seems to be broken unfortunately. As for the second, the price is good but it's only 900 lumen. Also, it's very common for Chinese manufacturers to overstate the output ("Chinese lumen" seems to be a thing) so you should check the actual potential output of the led emitters (Cree's website most likely), given the power source/battery of the lamp. But I guess that there will be more and more Chinese manufacturers that understand that there is a great demand, which is great news for us consumers!

You're quite right, it may well be that the opteka held up due to relatively shallow depths. I brought it down to 29 m if I'm not mistaken. Most macro will be <30 m though I suppose. I plan to go back to Sudan next, where the diving tends to be significantly deeper. But then again the depths would be for finding hammerhead schools and not for shooting nudis