Brand of variable denisty ND filter

[YesDear]

Ok does anyone have a recommendation on brand of variable density ND Filter?

 

[WDWFigment]

If you do a lot of wide angle shooting, my recommendation would be none. Otherwise, the Singh-Ray is good, I've heard.

I've had a lot of success using the B+W 1.8 and having my aperture be the 'variable'. I'd highly recommend going that route.

 

[Marlton Mom]

If you do a lot of wide angle shooting, my recommendation would be none. Otherwise, the Singh-Ray is good, I've heard.

I've had a lot of success using the B+W 1.8 and having my aperture be the 'variable'. I'd highly recommend going that route.

Would that be because of the vignetting that a wide angle experiences with filters or is there another reason? I've been trying to read up on filters and they say don't use them with wide angle lenses but they don't really let you know at what size you start to have problems with DX format lenses.

Complicating matters is that I have a Nikon D90 which is a DX Format camera, so I'm thinking that my 18 -105mm lens is really a 36 -??mm

So is it 30mm and above and you won't have problems with vignetting?.... on a DX format camera???

Ai yi yi!!!

I'd like to get a filter set for that 18-105 but I'd hate to pull the trigger and then learn I made a mistake because it's not workable on the 18mm end.

Thanks for any assistance any of you might be able to offer with this. It's been driving me crazy all summer. (it's not a long trip....)

~Marlton Mom

 

[cpbjgc]

In quick response to Marlton Mom, the issue is vignetting on a UWA lens as you guessed.

Having said that, I have used ND filters on my 17-70 lens at 17mm many times with great results, so you should be fine with one on your 18-105.

And back to the OP, the only one I have seen is the Singh-Ray, but I have never used one, just read about it. Good luck on your search!

 

[Daisy14'sDH]

I recently went through this same dilemna for use on my 12-24 mm lens. I havent received the ND filter yet so cant comment much on functionality, but I just wanted to try one out to see what all the fuss was about lol! One member suggested that at a little wider 16mm (I think) it would be fine, if not I can crop...

 

[WDWFigment]

Would that be because of the vignetting that a wide angle experiences with filters or is there another reason? I've been trying to read up on filters and they say don't use them with wide angle lenses but they don't really let you know at what size you start to have problems with DX format lenses.

Complicating matters is that I have a Nikon D90 which is a DX Format camera, so I'm thinking that my 18 -105mm lens is really a 36 -??mm

So is it 30mm and above and you won't have problems with vignetting?.... on a DX format camera???

Ai yi yi!!!

I'd like to get a filter set for that 18-105 but I'd hate to pull the trigger and then learn I made a mistake because it's not workable on the 18mm end.

Thanks for any assistance any of you might be able to offer with this. It's been driving me crazy all summer. (it's not a long trip....)

~Marlton Mom

The main issue actually is not vignetting. It's that the vari-ND filters produce inconsistent results across the frame because of angles of light and stuff (similar to a CP filter) unique to an ultra-wide angle lens. I don't know the full scientific explanation (if I did, I wouldn't have explained it as "stuff" causing the problem), but there are plenty of science-lovers around here, so I'm sure someone can jump in.

I have had no issues with the B+W 1.8 on my Tokina 11-16. Some slight vignetting, but nothing that a slight crop can't fix.

 

[Marlton Mom]

The main issue actually is not vignetting. It's that the vari-ND filters produce inconsistent results across the frame because of angles of light and stuff (similar to a CP filter) unique to an ultra-wide angle lens. I don't know the full scientific explanation (if I did, I wouldn't have explained it as "stuff" causing the problem), but there are plenty of science-lovers around here, so I'm sure someone can jump in.

I have had no issues with the B+W 1.8 on my Tokina 11-16. Some slight vignetting, but nothing that a slight crop can't fix.

Thanks CPBJGC and Tom and YesDear for asking the question. Sometimes the best way to understand whether it will work and what will happen is to just slap that baby on there and see for yourself. I really appreciate the benefit of all your experience and advice.

That's good to know because I have the Tokina 11-16 as well. Now if only I could find a filter system (CP and ND) that can go from fitting in a 77mm Tokina f11-16 to a 67mm Nikon 18-105mm! Off to B and H to see what is available. I may be asking for to much for 1 filter. I guess I got spoiled with adapter rings from my old set of smaller mm filters.

In other filter considerations I've stopped using UV filters because I kept getting diffraction spots (?) with certain lens/shooting conditions. I swore I wouldn't go back to using them but once I realized that you can't Photoshop in the benefits of a polarizing filter I am reconsidering that one.

~Marlton Mom

 

[WDWFigment]

Thanks CPBJGC and Tom and YesDear for asking the question. Sometimes the best way to understand whether it will work and what will happen is to just slap that baby on there and see for yourself. I really appreciate the benefit of all your experience and advice.

That's good to know because I have the Tokina 11-16 as well. Now if only I could find a filter system (CP and ND) that can go from fitting in a 77mm Tokina f11-16 to a 67mm Nikon 18-105mm! Off to B and H to see what is available. I may be asking for to much for 1 filter. I guess I got spoiled with adapter rings from my old set of smaller mm filters.

In other filter considerations I've stopped using UV filters because I kept getting diffraction spots (?) with certain lens/shooting conditions. I swore I wouldn't go back to using them but once I realized that you can't Photoshop in the benefits of a polarizing filter I am reconsidering that one.

~Marlton Mom

Step down adapter. It's like $2 shipped on eBay.

 

[cpbjgc]

I will belabor the point a little, but for me, vignetting would be the bigger problem. Vignetting is a problem with most UWA lenses, and depending on the polarizing filter (which I gather is how the variable density filters work) you use it can be worse - cheaper/thicker polarizers can make vignetting worse. But, as Tom pointed out, it is something you can sometimes fix in post, or with cropping.

The uneven polarization you can get in that big blue sky (parts darker, parts ligthter) when using a polarizer with a UWA is also an issue, but its an effect I know about and I tend to like so I, so I was never fussed about it.

After doing a quick google search, I also see some folks are making "DIY" variable density filters by stacking a linear polarizer on a circular polarizer. I have to go visit my favourite used camera store now

 

[mom2rtk]

In other filter considerations I've stopped using UV filters because I kept getting diffraction spots (?) with certain lens/shooting conditions. I swore I wouldn't go back to using them but once I realized that you can't Photoshop in the benefits of a polarizing filter I am reconsidering that one.

~Marlton Mom

That's when I ditched all of my uv filters too. I would get some ghostly spots of something in certain conditions. Once I realized it was the filter, I was done.

Tom posted a great example photo on a thread I started a year or so ago when I was asking about polarizers. It showed the variable effects of a CP filter on across the image. The sky was sort of streaked lighter blue and brighter blue. It wasn't terrible, but you could notice it.

I'll see if I can find that thread.

 

[WDWFigment]

I will belabor the point a little, but for me, vignetting would be the bigger problem. Vignetting is a problem with most UWA lenses, and depending on the polarizing filter (which I gather is how the variable density filters work) you use it can be worse - cheaper/thicker polarizers can make vignetting worse. But, as Tom pointed out, it is something you can sometimes fix in post, or with cropping.

The uneven polarization you can get in that big blue sky (parts darker, parts ligthter) when using a polarizer with a UWA is also an issue, but its an effect I know about and I tend to like so I, so I was never fussed about it.

After doing a quick google search, I also see some folks are making "DIY" variable density filters by stacking a linear polarizer on a circular polarizer. I have to go visit my favourite used camera store now

FWIW, the results are far worse with a vari-ND filter than they are with a CP. I use and can tolerate the results of a CP on an UWA lens. I could not tolerate a vari-ND filter.

I mean, you all can obviously do what you want, but I would just recommend getting a stronger ND filter rather than a vari-ND if you're a wide angle shooter.

In any case, stacking filters to make your own vari-ND filter is going to produce far more vignetting than buying one regular ND filter.

 

[Marlton Mom]

Step down adapter. It's like $2 shipped on eBay.

FWIW, the results are far worse with a vari-ND filter than they are with a CP. I use and can tolerate the results of a CP on an UWA lens. I could not tolerate a vari-ND filter.

I mean, you all can obviously do what you want, but I would just recommend getting a stronger ND filter rather than a vari-ND if you're a wide angle shooter.

In any case, stacking filters to make your own vari-ND filter is going to produce far more vignetting than buying one regular ND filter.

So your saying that something like a Singh-Ray 77mm Vari-N-Duo Polarizing Variable Neutral Density Filter (Thin Ring) ($440) would not be a good choice for UWA, say 30 and under? Would that be combining two things that don't work well together for UWA?

If that's the case then the best thing to do would be to get a separate ND filter SET and a separate CP and swap 'em rather than stack anything?

Again I'm referring to DX format with 11mm as my widest point.

This filter stacking thing as far as the ND and the CP is a mystery to me, or I'm barking up the wrong tree and when we are talking stacking they mean ND with ND to get more f stops.

So I'm thinking that ND filters and CP shouldn't be married if you are shooting UWA and you are not shooting in extremely bright conditions or you need to really slow the motion.

Sorry about the confusion. It's just like me to paint myself in the corner with 2 things that may not go together.

 

[YesDear]

Well I have purchased a Fader brand ND filter. I could not justify $340-$440 for the Sing-Ray. I will let you know how it works. Will use on at 24-70 and a 70-200

 

[Marlton Mom]

Well I have purchased a Fader brand ND filter. I could not justify $340-$440 for the Sing-Ray. I will let you know how it works. Will use on at 24-70 and a 70-200

If you know Tom he probably bought his filters from a little old lady on 'craig bay' who only used them on Sundays.

~MM

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I have the Singh-Ray variable ND. I like it. I haven't tried any others, so I can't compare.

I don't recommend a variable ND for photography. A standard ND will vignette less and, in most cases, be optically superior. A variable ND is essentially two polarizers stacked together, so it has to be thicker and have more glass.

Where a variable ND really shines is in video. It allows you to make smooth adjustments during a shot, which you can't do with the aperture on most DSLR lenses.

One advantage you get with a variable ND over having one or two standard NDs is a bit more control. If you really want a particular shutter speed, aperture, and ISO, a variable ND will probably allow you to get that combination. With a standard ND, you'll have to compromise on one of those unless your ND has just the right darkness. In my years of photography, I can't think of any times when that was an issue. I'm not saying that it has never happened, but if it has it has been pretty rare. With video, you are generally locked into 2x frame rate for your shutter speed, so you've already given up one of your "control knobs" having the variable ND helps in those situations.

One thing that I would be concerned with a variable ND is color shifts. That was a common complaint a few years ago when they first came out. I'm not sure if it is still an issue. If you shoot RAW, that isn't a big deal. For video, you have to pick a custom white balance and hope that it is a good enough compromise for the entire shot if you plan on adjusting the ND during the shot.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Looking at the responses above, I should add that I haven't seen issues with variable results on wide shots. That doesn't mean that they aren't a problem. I don't tend to shoot wide all that often, so I may have missed them.

One problem that I have seen is that if I make the effect too strong, the image falls apart horribly. There are markings on the filter showing it's usable range. I have found that it is critical that I stay in that range.

 

[cpbjgc]

FWIW, the results are far worse with a vari-ND filter than they are with a CP. I use and can tolerate the results of a CP on an UWA lens. I could not tolerate a vari-ND filter.

I mean, you all can obviously do what you want, but I would just recommend getting a stronger ND filter rather than a vari-ND if you're a wide angle shooter.

In any case, stacking filters to make your own vari-ND filter is going to produce far more vignetting than buying one regular ND filter.

I totally agree with this. I have a couple ND filters that I will stack as needed for long exposures. I am just curious about the stacked polarizers now, especially if I can find a cheap linear polarizer. The examples I have seen look pretty lo-fi and often have some odd colour shifts, so not something I would want to use all the time, just for some fun.

I will be interested to see what results YesDear gets from his new filter.

 

[WDWFigment]

http://www.flickr.com/groups/neutraldensity/discuss/72157625823550713/