Using Nikkor UW15 on Sony Mirrorless Full frame - worth it

[Interceptor121]

I have put together my notes from a recent pool session. I got this lens for video but as everyone keeps raving about it I tried also for photos

Nikkor UW15 on Sony Mirrorless for photography – Worth it?

Nauticam makes some really interesting adapters and ports for Sony cameras, one of them allows you to use vintage Nikkor lenses on full frame mirrorless cameras. I decided to source the UW15 as I a…

interceptor121.com

Happy to answer questions here

 

[beldridg]

Very cool write-up, thanks! I shoot almost entirely wrecks so the manual focus (moving objects) shouldn't be a big problem for most of my photos. I've thought about getting this combo to have something different to shoot with.

I had one question. Your article says:

"The lens is especially challenging as it is not particularly wide so you do need strobe power."

I don't quite understand that part. I can understand why with a wide angle lens would need more strobe power, but you mention that it is "not" particularly wide but you still need a lot of strobe power?

Obviously everything is relative, but would you need more power for this lens or using, say, the WWL1-B which is wider?

Thanks,

- brett

 

[Barmaglot]

I don't quite understand that part. I can understand why with a wide angle lens would need more strobe power, but you mention that it is "not" particularly wide but you still need a lot of strobe power?

Shooting the same subject, you will need to stay further away with this 15mm than you would with a wider lens, and thus you need more powerful strobes - reflected light decreases with the fourth power of distance.

 

[Interceptor121]

Shooting the same subject, you will need to stay further away with this 15mm than you would with a wider lens, and thus you need more powerful strobes - reflected light decreases with the fourth power of distance.

Very cool write-up, thanks! I shoot almost entirely wrecks so the manual focus (moving objects) shouldn't be a big problem for most of my photos. I've thought about getting this combo to have something different to shoot with.

I had one question. Your article says:

"The lens is especially challenging as it is not particularly wide so you do need strobe power."

I don't quite understand that part. I can understand why with a wide angle lens would need more strobe power, but you mention that it is "not" particularly wide but you still need a lot of strobe power?

Obviously everything is relative, but would you need more power for this lens or using, say, the WWL1-B which is wider?

Thanks,

- brett

Barmaglot is correct as the lens is not that wide you need to stand further back so you need more power and the quality of light drops as consequence of the light being less diffused
I would not recommend this lens for wrecks something near 16mm is better without going too wide

 

[beldridg]

Barmaglot is correct as the lens is not that wide you need to stand further back so you need more power and the quality of light drops as consequence of the light being less diffused
I would not recommend this lens for wrecks something near 16mm is better without going too wide

Okay, perfect, thanks for the clarification.

I currently use the Sony 28-60 with the WWL1-B since I travel and don't want to bring a 16-35 with the 230mm dome. It is about the best tradeoff I have found for weight/size/quality/cost, etc.

- brett

 

[Interceptor121]

Okay, perfect, thanks for the clarification.

I currently use the Sony 28-60 with the WWL1-B since I travel and don't want to bring a 16-35 with the 230mm dome. It is about the best tradeoff I have found for weight/size/quality/cost, etc.

- brett

The WWL-1 is a fisheye zoom lens with barrel distortion the 16-35mm is a rectilinear lens they are not comparable really. If you are not bothered by the bent lines of the WWL-1 no worries
Besides there is also a 180mm dome which significantly lighter but still over 1kg

 

[beldridg]

The WWL-1 is a fisheye zoom lens with barrel distortion the 16-35mm is a rectilinear lens they are not comparable really. If you are not bothered by the bent lines of the WWL-1 no worries
Besides there is also a 180mm dome which significantly lighter but still over 1kg

Yeah, I have learned to live with the tradeoff. I'd prefer rectilinear but don't prefer the dome size. The other "problem" I face is that I regularly dive > 60m and the NA-37129 dome is "only" rated to 60m.

Maybe I should switch to shooting macro.

- brett

 

[beldridg]

The WWL-1 is a fisheye zoom lens with barrel distortion the 16-35mm is a rectilinear lens they are not comparable really. If you are not bothered by the bent lines of the WWL-1 no worries
Besides there is also a 180mm dome which significantly lighter but still over 1kg

PS - I also sometimes shoot my a6400 with the 10-18 lens which I like.

- brett