Just as I was wrapping up my write-up on Nauticam’s MFO-3, I was handed one of Marelux’s new MacroView 60 (MV-60) wet lenses to try out for a day at one of South Florida’s best-known macro sites — the Blue Bridge.
Like the MFO-3, the MV-60’s job is to convert the field of view of a 90-105mm macro lens into something closer to a 50-60mm macro, effectively getting you in tighter on small subjects without swapping lenses mid-dive.
Side by side, the two lenses are close in size and looks, both housed in hard-anodized aluminum alloy around optical-grade glass elements. The differences show up in the details: the MFO-3 uses 4 elements in 3 groups, while the MV-60 uses 4 elements in 4 groups, leaving more air space between elements — which makes the MV-60 noticeably lighter underwater, by as much as 85 grams.
The MV-60’s front element is flat rather than the MFO-3’s slight concave, and it includes a built-in 77mm filter thread, where the MFO-3 needs an optional M82 holder to accept filters. Both lenses carry an anti-reflection coating on the front element; realistically, the only time I’d reach for a screw-on filter is during fluorescence (fluo) photography, when a yellow barrier filter needs to sit in front of the lens.
Nauticam MFO-3 vs. Marelux MacroView 60: Side by Side
| Spec | Nauticam MFO-3 | Marelux MacroView 60 |
| Dimensions (D x L) | 84 x 114.2mm / 3.3 x 4.5 in. | 81 x 119mm / 3.2 x 4.7 in. |
| Weight in air | 602g / 21.2 oz | 535g / 18.9 oz |
| Buoyancy in water | -120g / 4.2 oz | -35g / 1.2 oz |
| Converted FOV (on 105mm) | 38° | 40° |
| Max. magnification | 0.9x | 0.9x |
| Working distance | 0 – 1,500mm / 0 – 59 in. | 0 – ∞ |
| Lens construction | 4 elements / 3 groups | 4 elements / 4 groups |
| Depth rating | 100m | 100m |
| Housing body | Hard-anodized aluminum alloy | Hard-anodized aluminum alloy |
| Lens coating | Anti-reflection, front element | Anti-reflection, front element |
| Mounting | Universal M67 x P0.75 threaded base | Universal M67 x P0.75 threaded base |
| Retail price (USD) | $730.00 | $599.00 |
Making things convenient, the MV-60 uses the same M67 thread size as Nauticam’s line of water-contact optics for macro photography. Being that my Nauticam / Nikon Z8 camera setup with a Nauticam M67 Double Flip Holder, I could alternate between the two lenses on the fly whenever a willing subject came along.
Putting Both to the Test
I started on the wreckage of an abandoned sportfishing boat that’s usually productive for macro subjects.
For this first shot, I framed a grouping of French grunts from about 3 feet away, using my Nikkor Z MC 105mm f/2.8 VR S macro lens with the MFO-3 up front. Nikon Z8 camera settings: 1/200 sec, ISO 200, f/13.
For the second shot, I kept every camera setting the same and simply swapped the MFO-3 for the MV-60. In terms of focus and detail, the two images are essentially equal to the eye.
To get a better sense of how the two lenses really compare, I moved on to wider apertures in the f/6.3-f/5.6 range.
Round One: Batfish at f/6.3
For round one, I found a small, palm-sized batfish doing its best impression of the bottom. Since this fish wasn’t likely to move much, I kept the camera settings at 1/200 sec and ISO 200, but opened up the Nikkor Z MC 105mm f/2.8 VR S macro lens to f/6.3.
With the MFO-3 in place, I moved in until my subject was about a foot from the front of the lens. Once I had enough shots with the MFO-3, I worked around to the batfish’s right side and shot several more frames with the MV-60.
Once again, there was plenty of in-focus area across the fish’s entire front end for such a shallow depth of field at f/6.3, with decent-looking bokeh falling off behind it.
Round Two: Seahorse at f/5.6
For round two, I went with a full-size yellow seahorse I’ve gotten to know at this site, shooting even closer — about 2 inches from the subject — to see how the MV-60 would stack up against the MFO-3.
Just as it would with a 60mm macro lens on a full-frame camera, the converted FOV on the 105mm shifts into that 38°-40° range, with a maximum magnification of 0.9x.
To my eye, opening up one more stop rendered a beautifully creamy bokeh in the background, while detail around the seahorse’s eye stayed impressively sharp.
Takeaway
The one question that will likely come to mind is Marelux’s New MacroView 60 Wet Lens a viable alternative to Nauticam’s MFO-3?
Although this short review of the MV-60 was far from a thorough, detailed evaluation between these two optics, my takeaway from just one dive with it, is that it performs as advertised. While I feel that a more compressive test to see just how well its optics really stacks up against Nauticam’s MFO-3, we now have two solid wet lenses on the market, separated by a $110 price difference. Either way, macro shooters have more options than ever for how they approach underwater macro photography.
