I'm looking to buy two 4x4 ND filter for my standard tray matte-box, and I wonder what would be the best price/performance. I'm also not sure if I should get two 0.3's, or one 0.3 and one 0.6, or perhaps one 0.3 and one 0.9, or...? I'm mostly gonna use them outside to get DOF when it's too bright. Any help appreciated.

-- peer

I'm looking to buy two 4x4 ND filter for my standard tray matte-box, and I wonder what would be the best price/performance. I'm also not sure if I should get two 0.3's, or one 0.3 and one 0.6, or perhaps one 0.3 and one 0.9, or...? I'm mostly gonna use them outside to get DOF when it's too bright. Any help appreciated.

-- peer

What ƒ stop do you want to get to?

If you're shooting in full sun and want to get to ƒ4 or wider you need much more ND than that.

Something in the 1.2 to 1.8 range would be what you're looking for.

Dave Smith

Peer:

Don't be a tightwad, spend the money, do it right. I have been extremely happy with it Singh-Ray Filters: Vari-ND Variable Neutral Density Filter (http://www.singh-ray.com/varind.html) Leave the 5D MKII at 1/60th ISO 100, dial in the DOF you want with your aperture, then control the look and exposure with the Vari ND. It's like having a second manual iris.

Well worth the bucks.

Dan

Peer: Don't be a tightwad, spend the money, do it right. I have been extremely happy with it Singh-Ray Filters: Vari-ND Variable Neutral Density Filter (http://www.singh-ray.com/varind.html)

And sell my lovely super duper Century mattebox...?! Since it has two filter trays, why not use them instead of lashing out even more dough on a SinghRay?

-- peer

...Leave the 5D MKII at 1/60th ISO 100...There are posts somewhere claiming that the lowest noise points are 160, 320, 640, 1250, and 2500 ISO. I haven't tested or confirmed it myself.

Anyway, with your variable ND, you could easily choose to hit 100, 160, or whatever you want, given enough light.

@Peer: Personally, I wouldn't choose two 0.3 NDs. If I only had one, I'd probably choose a 0.9 for the situation where I want to open the aperture by three stops in daylight. Few in the audience will notice a one stop change in aperture. On my lawnmower timelapse, http://vimeo.com/4697740 , I used a 0.9, closed the aperture to f/22, captured one second open and one second closed (the minimum settings on my controller), and I still blew out the highlights. I wish I had a 1.8 at the time. I could have exposed two stops lower and opened the aperture one stop to reduce diffusion.

@Peer: Personally, I wouldn't choose two 0.3 NDs. If I only had one, I'd probably choose a 0.9 for the situation where I want to open the aperture by three stops in daylight.

So if I use, say, two 0.9 filters (3 stops each) on top of each other, will that result in 1.8 density... i.e., is it linear or is there some log factor involved?

-- peer

So if I use, say, two 0.9 filters (3 stops each) on top of each other, will that result in 1.8 density... i.e., is it linear or is there some log factor involved?

-- peer

Yes, that's correct. In general a single 1.8 is better in that it will have less flare and color shift. Also, if you buy a 0.9 and 1.8, you can get three values: 0.9, 1.8 and 2.7 (stacked.) Many people buy 0.3, 0.6, and 0.9, allowing any value from 0.3 to 1.8 in one stop increments - that's eight values - if you're willing to stack up to three filters.

Many people buy 0.3, 0.6, and 0.9, allowing any value from 0.3 to 1.8 in one stop increments - that's eight values - if you're willing to stack up to three filters.

My mattebox has only two filter trays -- so do you think one 0.9 and one 1.8 would be sufficient in bright daylight to get me down to a 1.8 aperture without cranking the snot out of everything else?

Btw, do you have a good & affordable sucrose for 4x4 ND filters?

-- peer

Hey, Jon. This will probably sound like a stupid question. Am I better off to have the ISO set to 1250, rather than 1000? I'd get less noise with 1250? That doesn't make any sense at all to me. Maybe I'm reading what you wrote wrong, who knows. Thanks for your help, Jon. I like reading what you have to say on here. You're a rockstar!

Hey, Jon. This will probably sound like a stupid question. Am I better off to have the ISO set to 1250, rather than 1000? I'd get less noise with 1250? That doesn't make any sense at all to me. Maybe I'm reading what you wrote wrong, who knows. Thanks for your help, Jon. I like reading what you have to say on here. You're a rockstar!
I wanted to jump in and suggest that the difference between 1250 and 1000 is probably not perceptible. However, if your doing many takes in the same lighting condition it would be best to maintain the same ISO for all takes. That is where the ND filters hold additional value to allow more flexibility. I am still undecided if I will go with screw-on style or a full matte-box rig. I like the screw-on for more under-the-radar low profile shooting. Good Luck.

Hey, Jon. This will probably sound like a stupid question. Am I better off to have the ISO set to 1250, rather than 1000? I'd get less noise with 1250? That doesn't make any sense at all to me. Maybe I'm reading what you wrote wrong, who knows.

That's exactly what some are claiming. In fact, they would claim that 1250 is quieter than 800! Again, I haven't tested it, personally.

Here are some 3rd party photo examples: 5d Mark II noise tests, ISO 100 to 1000 - a set on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/38215965@N04/sets/72157617903991680/comments/)

People are theorizing that this has to do with the balance between analog (native to the sensor) and digital gain. I think the explanation is that the analog gain jumps in full stop steps and is native to 160, 320 and so on. The other levels are synthesized digitally, or so goes the theory.

Also, turn off Highlight Tone Priority for lowest noise, though it can provide better highlight detail.

Jon. I like reading what you have to say on here.And I really enjoy reading and posting here. Chris runs a most excellent forum!

There are posts on another forum claiming that the lowest noise points are 160, 320, 640, 1250, and 2500 ISO. I haven't tested or confirmed it myself.


That's correct. ISO 160 is actually just ISO 200 with +1/3 EC. The camera darkens the image digitally to make it look like ISO 160, but 1/3 stop of highlights are clipped just as if you had added the +1/3 EC yourself. The reason it has slightly less noise is because of the increased exposure. The other down side *would* be increased posterization, except that the 5D2 already has far more bit depth than it can ever use, even with digital EC, so that is not a problem.

ISO 250 is actually just ISO 200 with -1/3 EC. The camera brightens the image digitally to make it look like ISO 250, which means there is no additional highlight headroom like you would have gotten if you did it yourself.

John Sheehy charted it all out here:

Headroom, footroom, and dynamic range of all the ISO settings on the 5D Mark II (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=31378147)

Am I better off to have the ISO set to 1250, rather than 1000?


Yes. The -1/3 ISO settings (160, 320, 640, 1250) are fine (they just have slightly less highlight headroom and slightly less noise). The +1/3 ISO settings (250, 500, etc.) are suboptimal because they have more noise and the same highlight headroom.


I think the explanation is that the analog gain jumps in full stop steps and is native to 160, 320 and so on. The other levels are synthesized digitally, or so goes the theory.


That's correct. Only Canon's 1D cameras and the original 5D1 had real analog gain for the third-stop ISO settings, but even then those gain settings had slightly higher read noise because they used a separate late-stage gain amplifier, not the same variable gain amp that does the full stop ISO settings. The 5D2 is like the rest of the non-1D cameras, including the 50D and 500D, in that it does the "tweener" ISO gains digitally. This can be known for a fact because the raw histogram is an *exact* match for what the pull/push would result in.


Also, turn off Highlight Tone Priority for lowest noise, though it can provide better highlight detail.


Agreed. Optimally, one would only use HTP for ISO 3200+, since there is no noise difference between ISO 1600 and 3200, it will provide the extra highlight headroom for free. But I find myself using it even when it increases noise needlessly, because I can't recreate the perfect nonlinear EC of the HTP in the Profile Editor (though I can easily do it in a raw converter).

And I really enjoy reading and posting here. Chris runs a most excellent forum!

Agreed.

very informative on how this camera behaves and why. Thank you.

Peer:

I guess it depends on what you are shooting. If you are shooting narrative, matte box and your glass filters all of the way.

I am shooting more documentary stuff, chasing subjects all over big city, subway, on the street. My huge matte box and $5,000.00 worth of Formatt and Tiffen glass would be a bit out of place, way too slow and clunky. The beauty of the VariND is that it is fast, low key and infinitely adjustable instantly.

If I shoot some of the shorts that I have in mind, I would use my matte box and follow focus. But for the doc I am on, the Vari ND is a Godsend, couldn't shoot without it.

Dan

I just found a much cheaper alternative to the Singh-Ray variable density filters on eBay. I thought that I would risk $100 & order one. A nice feature is that it is an oversize filter effectively already in a step-up ring to avoid vignetting on wide-angle lenses. e.g. the filter for a lens with a 77mm thread is 82mm in size. Also unlike the Singh-Ray filters they come in a much wider variety of sizes.

Fader ND Filter (from ND2 to ND400) 77mm - eBay (item 140325118069 end time Jul-04-09 20:20:00 PDT) (http://cgi.ebay.com/Fader-ND-Filter-from-ND2-to-ND400-77mm_W0QQitemZ140325118069QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCamera_Filters?hash=item20ac076075&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=65%3A12%7C66%3A2%7C39%3A1%7C72%3A1205%7C240%3A1318%7C301%3A1%7C293%3A1%7C294%3A50)

This appears to be the site of the manufacturer High Quality Professional Equipments - Fader ND filter (ND2~400) (http://www.lightcraftworkshop.com/site/page1000.aspx)

This Hong Kong store that looks like it's the same eBay trader. High Quality Professional Equipments - Local Seller (http://www.lightcraftworkshop.com/site/page3.aspx) & Yahoo! ©ç½æ (http://hk.store.auctions.yahoo.com/hk/bonifaceleung)

That last site is mostly in Chinese but it looks like the prices are even cheaper than on eBay. Perhaps someone could help with some translation?

When I receive the filter I shall report back. If it's decent quality then at those prices I can afford to equip all my lenses. It's usually sunny here so any outdoor shooting requires ND filters if the lens isn't to be stopped right down.

I'd be interested to know how that goes Nigel. And also if you feel there's any discolouration problems. I have various values of Chinese NDs and they are all different colours. Some unusable.

Avey

I would definitely like to check out your budget Vari ND Nigel. I agree with Wayne, I recently sold off all of my Cokin NDs and ND grads because the supposedly gray tints were leaning way toward brown. Neutral density really does need to be uniform and neutrally gray.

Talk soon,

Dan

I hope to have the 77mm Fader ND filter within the next week or so. Stuff arrives here pretty quickly from Hong Kong (they have some pretty stamps too:-). I had an email from the charmingly named Boniface Leung who told me that the 72mm filter is back-ordered but he should have some next week.

I would definitely like to check out your budget Vari ND Nigel. I agree with Wayne, I recently sold off all of my Cokin NDs and ND grads because the supposedly gray tints were leaning way toward brown. Neutral density really does need to be uniform and neutrally gray.

Talk soon,

Dan

I don't understand why it has to be neutral. Don't you always have to fix the color in post anyway? Not arguing, really want to know.

I don't understand why it has to be neutral. Don't you always have to fix the color in post anyway? Not arguing, really want to know.

Good point, Mark. As long as the color is uniform, color balancing will get it close and post will do the rest.

The only risk is that the filter could push down the color with the worst sensitivity to the sensor, and push up the most sensitive color. That could really limit the image in certain light. Then again, it could to the opposite and level the colors. Murphy's law says it will be the former. ;)

Good point, Mark. As long as the color is uniform, color balancing will get it close and post will do the rest.

The only risk is that the filter could push down the color with the worst sensitivity to the sensor, and push up the most sensitive color. That could really limit the image in certain light. Then again, it could to the opposite and level the colors. Murphy's law says it will be the former. ;)

I just got a Cokin set that I haven't tried yet. I'll do an experiment (maybe right now?) and shoot stills of a white screen at 18% with an identical studio light of known color temperature. One with the Cokin ND and one without. Then I will compare the raw colors and see what comes out.

I'll try it by adjusting the ISO in one case to match and speed in the other. Speed would probably be the least likely to affect the color.

I think I'm in luck with my Cokin coloring. I tried a zillion different combinations of filters, took multiple shots, and averaged them. After all that work it became clear that comparing just the two most extreme values told the whole story.

No filter: r:142, g:140, b:140
3 filters: r:113, g:129, b:132

First of all, ignore the overall exposure difference. I estimated 6 stops by going from 1/400 to 1/6 which is not accurate. But now let's look at the ratios for each primary. In other words these are the values for the filtered cases divided by the original values and then normalized for exposure:

r: 0.86, g: 0.99, b: 1.01

It is clear that the only real change is a drop in red. This is very different than the brown tint that is reported everywhere.

Here are the two extreme shots. The first is 0 stops with no filter at 1/400:

Picasa Web Albums - mchahn (http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/rkgwNzQfc5lsmQ_vUVCE7Q?authkey=Gv1sRgCMnFoNvj2JurMQ&feat=directlink)

This is with all three of the 1, 2, and 3 stop P series Cokin filters at 1/6 (forgive the camera shake):

Picasa Web Albums - mchahn (http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/lPP4mqEcBhAUeJ-FkInOeA?authkey=Gv1sRgCMnFoNvj2JurMQ&feat=directlink)

You can see the blue-green tint.

I think this is good news because red is usually the one that clips first (in my experience) so losing some red will allow good recovery in post.

Comments?

There are posts on another forum claiming that the lowest noise points are 160, 320, 640, 1250, and 2500 ISO. I haven't tested or confirmed it myself.

Anyway, with your variable ND, you could easily choose to hit 100, 160, or whatever you want, given enough light.

@Peer: Personally, I wouldn't choose two 0.3 NDs. If I only had one, I'd probably choose a 0.9 for the situation where I want to open the aperture by three stops in daylight. Few in the audience will notice a one stop change in aperture. On my lawnmower timelapse, Rocket-Powered Lawnmower on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/4697740) , I used a 0.9, closed the aperture to f/22, captured one second open and one second closed (the minimum settings on my controller), and I still blew out the highlights. I wish I had a 1.8 at the time. I could have exposed two stops lower and opened the aperture one stop to reduce diffusion.

Cool video - what advantage does shooting in live mode bring to this situation (not to hijack the thread).

Cool video - what advantage does shooting in live mode bring to this situation (not to hijack the thread).Ideally, I would be able to keep the mirror locked up for less vibration. I'm not sure that I achieve this. Also, for best results the iris should stay in the same position between shots. I used a Nikon lens, so I achieved that, but I hear that there are tricks for keeping EOS lens irises from opening between shots. Anyway, the less that moves between shots, the better - both for camera wear and to keep everything solid from shot to shot.

And, yes, I wish I had a stronger ND filter at the time (back on topic...)

My 77mm Fader ND variable neutral density filter arrived from Hong Kong yesterday. It look very nicely made works smoothly & a nice touch came with a 82mm lens cap (to reduce vignettting it is really an 82mm filter in a 77mm step-down ring). I haven't done extensive testing yet but it looks great with no colour cast & very even density change throughout the range right up until it reaches the max.

I will have the opportunity in the next couple of days to compare this filter directly with a Singh-Ray variable ND filter which costs 4x the price so will report back but my preliminary results are very, very good. I will be ordering a 72mm & probably another couple of 77mm. At this price it is affordable to keep a filter on each lens. It means that I can enable Highlight Tone Priority & still use wide aperture despite the minimum 200 ISO & just remove the filter in very low light situations as the grain on this camera is imperceptible even at very high ISO.

Here is the link to the eBay store of Boniface Leung where you ill find the Fader ND filter in a variety of sizes from 82mm down & the smaller sizes are even more affordable (58mm is $58 delivered) http://shop.ebay.com/merchant/bonifaceleung

BTW I notice that there is another seller on eBay with the 77mm filter at the cheaper price of just $90.33 delivered Fader ND filter ND2 to ND8 ND400 for Canon 24-105 77mm - eBay (item 390059789820 end time Jun-24-09 00:53:36 PDT) (http://cgi.ebay.com/Fader-ND-filter-ND2-to-ND8-ND400-for-Canon-24-105-77mm_W0QQitemZ390059789820QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCamera_Filters?hash=item5ad1600dfc&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262&_trkparms=%7C301%3A1%7C293%3A1%7C294%3A30)

I just ordered the 77mm version as well, sounds great.

I love the idea set your f-stop. Set your shutter speed. Set your ASA. Dial your ND for correct exposure.

The only down side is you can no longer use an external light meter (LunaPro). I still use that a lot, maybe I am showing my age.

For video it is great and if quality of optics are acceptable it would be great for stills.

I still always have to soften the image in Color to make acceptable video, and I am experimenting with softening filters while shooting. So if this softens the image somewhat I would not mind at all.

I have now been using my 77mm Fader ND for a few days & it is just great. I have been
really, really pleased with my purchase. There are no aberrations or colour casts & it just works as advertised.

I have been able to compare the Fader ND with a Singh-Ray Vari-ND & the Fader ND is better. The Singh-Ray is very thick & can cause vignetting with wide angle lenses whereas the Fader ND does not. The Fader ND 77mm is actually an 82mm filter that is in a 77mm step down mount & a nice touch is that an 82mm lens cap was included.

I always thought that the Singh-Ray was crazily expensive for what it is. The Fader ND is not cheap crap but is at least as good quality as the Singh-Ray but at a much more reasonable price. It also comes in a greater range of filter sizes. I have already ordered a couple more.

Nigil,

How does the 82mm work with Canons lens hoods. I use a 70-200 f 2.8, 100-400 and 17-40 and 24-105 all are 77's.

I ordered one and I should have it in a week or so.

Just curious, if you use it on any of those lenses.

I just got a Singh vari nd filter this week and all I can say is....wow. A lot of money I know, but it really is a quality product. Makes shooting in the sun a breeze.

Bruce Cleveland

I have a Hoya multicoated 8X (aka 0.9 aka 3 stop) ND filter. It's been all I need so far.

I have now been using my 77mm Fader ND for a few days & it is just great. I have been
really, really pleased with my purchase. There are no aberrations or colour casts & it just works as advertised.

I have been able to compare the Fader ND with a Singh-Ray Vari-ND & the Fader ND is better. The Singh-Ray is very thick & can cause vignetting with wide angle lenses whereas the Fader ND does not. The Fader ND 77mm is actually an 82mm filter that is in a 77mm step down mount & a nice touch is that an 82mm lens cap was included.

I always thought that the Singh-Ray was crazily expensive for what it is. The Fader ND is not cheap crap but is at least as good quality as the Singh-Ray but at a much more reasonable price. It also comes in a greater range of filter sizes. I have already ordered a couple more.

Thanks for the recommendation Nigel, I have ordered one of my own to start off

Nigil,

How does the 82mm work with Canons lens hoods. I use a 70-200 f 2.8, 100-400 and 17-40 and 24-105 all are 77's.

I ordered one and I should have it in a week or so.

Just curious, if you use it on any of those lenses.I have the 24-105mm & you can use the lens hood but it is not easy. The problem is that the lens hood will fit over a normal 77mm filter but with the 82mm filter in a step-down ring you need to fit the filter while the lens hood is in place. It is possible although a bit fiddly & I usually end up with finger prints all over the filter glass. The next problem once you have the filter fitted is that you need to reach into the lens hood to rotate the filter to adjust the amount of light it passes but I guess that this would still be a problem even if it were a 77mm filter. I guess that it would be better to buy an 82mm screw-in lens hood.

I have the 24-105mm & you can use the lens hood but it is not easy. The problem is that the lens hood will fit over a normal 77mm filter but with the 82mm filter in a step-down ring you need to fit the filter while the lens hood is in place. It is possible although a bit fiddly & I usually end up with finger prints all over the filter glass. The next problem once you have the filter fitted is that you need to reach into the lens hood to rotate the filter to adjust the amount of light it passes but I guess that this would still be a problem even if it were a 77mm filter. I guess that it would be better to buy an 82mm screw-in lens hood.

Hmm. Maybe a mattebox.

I have often thought a light weight mattebox that uses Canons bayonet mount would be cool. I will see if someone makes one.

Otherwise maybe I will sacrifice one of the hoods to modify as a mattebox with french flags. It could work with all 77mm filter Canon lenses.

Hmm. Maybe a mattebox.

I have often thought a light weight mattebox that uses Canons bayonet mount would be cool. I will see if someone makes one.

Otherwise maybe I will sacrifice one of the hoods to modify as a mattebox with french flags. It could work with all 77mm filter Canon lenses.

I ordered my Fader ND this morning. I'd be interested in how you plan to modify your hood as a mattebox.

Thanks,
Fred

Can the Fader ND work as a circular polarizer lens also?

I assume so since it is just two polarizer lenses...

That way, for the price of a polarizer lens, I can have a variable ND filter too!

thanks...

I have been able to compare the Fader ND with a Singh-Ray Vari-ND & the Fader ND is better. The Singh-Ray is very thick & can cause vignetting with wide angle lenses whereas the Fader ND does not.

What is the widest lens you've used the Fader without vignetting?

Thanks.

What is the widest lens you've used the Fader without vignetting?

Thanks.I have been using it with no problems on a Tamron 20-40mm F2.7-3.5. This lens has a 77mm filter ring.

After trying our Nigel's ND fader, I ordered one as well. I will be using it with the Canon 17-40 F4 L so as soon as the filter and lens arrive, I will report back on vignetting.

Great find Nigel!

Dan

After trying our Nigel's ND fader, I ordered one as well. I will be using it with the Canon 17-40 F4 L so as soon as the filter and lens arrive, I will report back on vignetting.

Dan

Yes, do please. I have a 16-35 and I'm sure it would vignette at the wide end, but I'm interested to see how wide you can go and still use it. The Sing Ray is very nice, but it vignettes even at 24mm.

Yes, do please. I have a 16-35 and I'm sure it would vignette at the wide end, but I'm interested to see how wide you can go and still use it. The Sing Ray is very nice, but it vignettes even at 24mm.

Not sure how much it will help, but you do realize the 17-40 uses a 77mm filter while the 16-35 uses a 82mm filter?

The fader nd offers the 77mm stepped to 82mm while the 82mm is stepped to 86. Dont know the math, but I would *assume* that you may have a lesser chance of vigenetting with the 82/86mm at 16mm than the 77-82 at 17mm.

My question is that on the singh-ray, they offer the nd with a polarizing filter, and I'm curious to know if its possible to do this with the fader nd? Has anyone tried it if it is possible?

Yes, do please. I have a 16-35 and I'm sure it would vignette at the wide end, but I'm interested to see how wide you can go and still use it. The Sing Ray is very nice, but it vignettes even at 24mm.

What is the widest lens you've used the Fader without vignetting?

Thanks.

I too would like to know what lens was used to test out the sing-ray.

I just ordered the fader nd in 77 and 82mm, I will report back (if noone else does) on the 16-35mm canon lens with the 82/86mm fader nd filter.
(i doubt the 24-70 canon in 77mm will exhibit vigenetting)

I received my Fade (77mm) the other day. I just tried my 17-40 L with it attached it it vignettes from 17mm thru about 20mm. :-(

Other than that, I'm happy with it.

Julian

I received my Fade (77mm) the other day. I just tried my 17-40 L with it attached it it vignettes from 17mm thru about 20mm. :-(

Other than that, I'm happy with it.

Julian

sorry to hear that:(

I guess I can assume the 77 will be fine with my 24-70 canon lens?
on the other hand, I guess the million dollar question is how is the 82 going to do with the 16-35?

That's disappointing Julian, I was hoping for no vignetting at 17. Oh well, I guess 17mm is destined for interiors only. I wonder if the 82mm with an adapter ring would have had no vignetting?

Dan

'Other than that, I'm happy with it.' do you have any other info re build quality? is there any colouration etc? thanks!

I too would like to know what lens was used to test out the sing-ray.

I just ordered the fader nd in 77 and 82mm, I will report back (if noone else does) on the 16-35mm canon lens with the 82/86mm fader nd filter.
(i doubt the 24-70 canon in 77mm will exhibit vigenetting)


Yes please! Which version of the 16-35 do you have? V1 is 77m thread, V2 is 82mm. I have V1, so I'd be interested to know whether either the Fader 77mm will work or the 82mm with a step down ring. Or neither :(

Thanks.

I have both the Singh-ray and the fader. Both great. Yes Singh-ray seems better made but the fader is a bargain...how they both measure up optically I have tested out fully.

Used them on my most recent shoot.

Philip Bloom Blog Archive Shooting on 5dmkII with candlelight, glidetrack, vari-nds (http://philipbloom.co.uk/2009/07/11/shooting-on-5dmkii-with-candlelight-glidetrack-vari-nds/)

Yes please! Which version of the 16-35 do you have? V1 is 77m thread, V2 is 82mm. I have V1, so I'd be interested to know whether either the Fader 77mm will work or the 82mm with a step down ring. Or neither :(

Thanks.

Its the II with the 82mm. I should have been more specific, sorry.

I guess ill find out how well it works when I get it in a few weeks.

I have both the Singh-ray and the fader. Both great. Yes Singh-ray seems better made but the fader is a bargain...how they both measure up optically I have tested out fully.

Used them on my most recent shoot.

Philip Bloom Blog Archive Shooting on 5dmkII with candlelight, glidetrack, vari-nds (http://philipbloom.co.uk/2009/07/11/shooting-on-5dmkii-with-candlelight-glidetrack-vari-nds/)

Did you mean to say "how they both measure up optically I have NOT tested out fully."?

Im assuming you HAVENT tetsted both out fully?

Did you mean to say "how they both measure up optically I have NOT tested out fully."?

Im assuming you HAVENT tetsted both out fully?I have compared them & prefer the Fader ND as it is half the thickness & does not cause vignetting in the way that the Singh-Ray does. The Fader ND is actually an 82mm filter built into a 77mm step down ring & works perfectly on all my 77mm lenses down to a Tamron 20-40mm. I have seen no problems at all with the Fader ND optics. There is no colour cast, softness or other distortion. I disagree with Philip as they both appear equally well made. The killer difference is the price. For the price of one Singh-Ray filter I can equip four of my lenses & have change. It's pretty sunny where I live so an ND filter is essential for any outdoor filming.