If I had to put words in Phil Bloom's mouth, I would guess that he might like the way the Singh-Ray has markings to show the level of filter strength. That said, I just ordered a Fader ND because yall seem to like it and it costs only $75 for the 67/72 which will be nice to go with my 72mm Ultra Contrast filter that I like for certain lighting conditions.

I just got the Fader 77mm.

It works very well and shows no vignetting even with my 17-40 Canon. I will do some optical quality tests later.

The only complaint I have is it basically becomes impossible to use Canons Lens hoods.

I plan on making a light small mattebox that fits into Canons bayonet mount with enough room to mount and adjust this filter. I tried to find one, and I was surprised no-one makes one, maybe the market is to small. I will post result of my tests and pics of my "mini matte box".

maybe the way to go to avoid flares with fader nd is a cheapo rubber hood, you can find many ones on ebay.

they have a screw in mount, and 3 different positions to use so.. its a versatile option.

I read in many post the possibility of buy different versions of nd fader based on the mm of the lens used, but there is another option, the step-down rings adaptors that cost 5$ and downconvert it

I use it regulary to adapt my original 82mm wide angle ring of lee filters system to use with 58mm diameter lenses like 50 f/1.4 or 85 f/1.8 without any disadvantages (afaik)

Are there any hoods that clip on like lens caps? It seems like a lightweight hood that clips into the filter threads would work and be convenient. The screw-in threaded hoods would make it more difficult to use filters. A round rubber clip-in hood would still allow easy use of the Fader ND. I guess if I don't want to use other filters often that I can just use a screw-on hood.

The problem with screw in hoods is more vignetting, I did notice that the Fader does vignette in a still at 17mm on my 17-40 Canon lens but not when shooting video. Video does crop top and bottom.

And I use 17mm to 400mm lenses they would all require different shades.

I am working on a bayonet mount mattebox / shade that is adjustable and has a lever that attaches to Fader and comes out the side to adjust ND. And has small french flags to adjust for any lens. Initially I am just sacrificing a Canon shade for my 17-40. Mounting it backwards cutting off shade wings and attaching a flat plate with flags leaving enough room for changing filters and a slot for lever on ND.

If I had to put words in Phil Bloom's mouth, I would guess that he might like the way the Singh-Ray has markings to show the level of filter strength.The Fader ND filters have a scale from Min to Max just like the Singh-Ray.

Anyone used the Fader ND on the 24-70 2.8 L ?
I mean this lens has somewhat funky design and the hood attaches to the non moving protruding pat of the body that could mean that you might have the possibility to use oridinal lens hood.

T

"The Fader ND filters have a scale from Min to Max just like the Singh-Ray."

Thanks. That is nice to know. I did not see the scale in pictures so thought there was none.

I bought the 67mm Fader ND and I'm hoping to use it on other lenses but mostly I plan to use my 28-300mm Tamron for my outdoor day lens and a few fast primes for interiors and night. It works out that daytime needs the ND and slower lenses are also acceptable. Night shots don't need ND and the shallow DOF from a fast lens doesn't seem as strange. I think razor-thin DOF is a bit odd in bright sunlight so the larger DOF from a 3.5-6.3 zoom lens is just fine. At night, I am usually shooting subjects in smaller areas so I can zoom with my feet and just a couple of prime lenses can get the shots I want.

I bring all this up because by figuring out my shooting style with the 5D I realized I mostly need a Fader ND for the zoom lens but I got a 52mm to 67mm step up adapter in case I want to use Nikon primes outside.

Also, I remember seeing a DIY lens hood modification around here for using polarizers with a hood. The guy cut a slot in the hood and mounted a little tiny wheel on an axle that spun the polarizer.

I have had great success with both the Fader ND and the Singh Ray Vari ND today in New Delhi on a commercial shoot.

Check out some screen grabs and a mini blog.

Philip Bloom Blog Archive Loving the Fader ND and Singh Ray Vari ND. Life savers in New Delhi! (http://philipbloom.co.uk/2009/07/22/loving-the-fader-nd-and-singh-ray-vari-nd-life-savers/#more-4550)

I, like Philip, have the Singh-Ray and the Fader. The are both good. I stupidly ordered the Singh-Ray normal version, thinking I might stack another filter on top. The regular fader is too thick, it vignettes a lot on wide lenses, I should have ordered the Singh-Ray thin.

The Fader ND when used with my Canon 17-40, like Olof, I see a tiny bit of vignetting in the corners only at 17mm, but the vignetting looks as if they are out of the video area, they are in the area with a letterbox bars. I am pretty happy with the Fader ND, I will be selling my Singh Ray. Mechanically, the Singh-Ray is constructed better than the Fader ND but it is not worth the extra money for me because I shoot mainly wide lenses. If I only shot tele lenses, I would prefer the Singh-Ray.

Dan

I have had great success with both the Fader ND and the Singh Ray Vari ND today in New Delhi on a commercial shoot.

Wow -- nice gig! Btw, what kind of mini rail-slider are you using there (at the side of the road)?

-- peer

Peer, that's the Glidetrack compact. Glidetrack.com

Brilliant kit, I used mine in Canada on a music video shoot a couple of weeks ago where I couldn't take the long one.

Avey

I, like Philip, have the Singh-Ray and the Fader. The are both good.

Dan

I've had the Singh-Ray for about 6-8 weeks and use it all the time except for low light shots. Got the Fader in 2 days ago. Shot a test with everything being the same.

I was able to match color when properly white balanced under a single soft box with 5500k light. Colors matched up very closely and whites and skin tones were exceptional.

I did see a slight difference in sharpness. The Singh_Ray was a little sharper.

In my test I forgot to change my image settings which are lower contrast, low sat, and low sharpness so my images were a little flat to begin with.

I shot my test at F2 and shutter of 60 at ISO 1200 so I could get into the middle stops of the ND vari filters.

Next few days I'll try to match up colors with the Fader on my GH1 and see how the video looks trying to match the 2 filters and 2 different brand cameras.

The new low light capabilities, the video modes in DSLR's, the new toys for white balance and these new vari ND filters are the best things that ever happened to our industry.

I have several 58mm and 77mm lens for 5d camera and a step up from 58 to 77mm so that my 77mm ND fader fits on all lens. However, a hood would be nice.........suggestions?

I have the 50mm lens, 70-300mm, and 24-105mm lit lens.

Thanks

I have several 58mm and 77mm lens for 5d camera and a step up from 58 to 77mm so that my 77mm ND fader fits on all lens. However, a hood would be nice.........suggestions?

Perhaps it's time to look into a mattebox..? Can use the same filter(s) for all lens sizes (and also grad ND's) and you'll have the best "hood" available, including french flags.

-- peer

pretty expensive for a matte box, I could make something for less then $500 probably.
And I am the director and cinematographer for the film, so I dont care what it looks like as long as it works.
If i want to impress the crew and cast i'll play back a few clips we record hehehe

I've been very happy with our two Fader ND filters. (77mm and 82...or is it 86mm...can't remember) Anyway, when I first used them, I noticed a blue tint to what I was shooting. But that's when I first started using the camera. I've used them many times since then and never had any problems.

Shooting outdoors under bright sun and still being able to shoot at f/2.8 is pretty handy. Yesterday though I tried experimenting with shooting at f/2.8 (Fader ND set to max) and shooting at f/8.0 (Fader ND set to lowest setting. I liked the look of shooting at f/8.0 vs f/2.8. It wasn't as contrasty. Was that the Fader ND or the f-stop change? I'm guessing it was the change in f-stop.

One way or the other, an adjustable ND filter gives you additional options to get the best looking footage. A 4x4 glass filter in a matte box won't allow for this additional versatility.

Just my $0.02. :)

Anyway, when I first used them, I noticed a blue tint to what I was shooting. But that's when I first started using the camera. I've used them many times since then and never had any problems.

HA! The same thing happened when I got my first 4x4 ND -- as I popped it in for the first test shoot I noticed that it wasn't very 'neutral' at all, but instead tinted all purple. Of course, I forgot to do a custom color balance before shooting, silly me.

-- peer

Haha! Good to know I wasn't the only one.

The thing that doesn't add up though, is most of the time I shoot outdoors on the 5600K (sun) setting. In otherwords, I don't White Balance. Weird.

I think what happened the first time I used it, was that I did a custom white balance (tends to look a little too blue for my taste) THEN added the Fader ND and it made the scene even look more blue. Live and learn. :)

BTW, I'm using a Photovision disc to white balance on the white and grey bars.