Fixed Vs Variable ND Filters

Mike Peterson · May 3rd, 2010, 07:28 AM

I don't understand why you would be saying this. I have a DIY variable ND that is bigger than all my lenses. I have a step up ring for all my lenses to step up into the ND. I have a sunshade that fits the ND, thus the sunshade fits all my lenses, and even if it doesn't it's $4 dude! The cheapest mattebox is see is like $200!

Mike Peterson · May 3rd, 2010, 08:33 AM

Let me qualify a bit...I do not do this for a living. If I was I would certainly spare no expense and purchase the "correct" equipment, also I would want to impress the client with my big camera. As it is I have to sneak a few bucks here and there to purchase the basic nessesities without making the wife unhappy with the money I spend. So you and I look at purchases for this camera in a very differant way...I'm also trying to keep a low profile because I can't afford to rent a location.

Liam Hall · May 3rd, 2010, 09:13 AM

Mike, there's no right way or wrong way, but there are different ways. You go with whatever solution works for you, but don't come on here suggesting people aren't using their brains when they choose a different route to you.

Lucky Haskins · May 3rd, 2010, 09:38 AM

I love starting a thread and then watching it wander all over the place...good stuff guys. Thanks

Mike Peterson · May 3rd, 2010, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liam Hall

Mike, there's no right way or wrong way, but there are different ways. You go with whatever solution works for you, but don't come on here suggesting people aren't using their brains when they choose a different route to you.

Ok my last rebuttal...my point was someone was stating that you will get vignetteing if you go with a stacked filter solution...which is not true if you use your head and figure out that a bigger filter using step up rings solves it.

I did NOT state that they weren’t using their head because they chose a different path. That is an incorrect interpretation of a simple statement...

and I stand by my statement.

Liam Hall · May 3rd, 2010, 11:44 AM

Mike, your solution using step up rings will work for some lenses, but not all. For example, I have an 11-16mm Tokina which has a 77mm thread. With a Fader ND (82mm front element) attached it vignettes at 11 and 12mm. I also have a Canon 14mm f/2.8 L. This lens doesn't have a filter thread, so again step-up rings would be useless.

Mike Peterson · May 3rd, 2010, 12:48 PM

Yes, these fader ND start having other issues with wide angles such as these. I do have a set of regular NDs as I get color shifts on my widest lenses also.

I know it's a video thing but I really wish companies would include in-camera ND's on their SLR's

Ryan Avery · May 3rd, 2010, 01:38 PM

For the record, it is very very (did I emphasize very enough?) hard to make a "variable ND" filter that does not have blue leak. This is because the process of crossing two polarizers causes the blue channel of light to leak through more than others and can wreak havoc on your white balance if you are paying attention.

I have owned a Sing-Ray for years for my own personal photography and I have to be very careful with it. It can be a good tool but you have to pay attention to the white balance details if you shift the ND level. This happens mostly at the stronger end of the ND.

Schneider does not currently manufacture a variable ND filter (as of May 2010 anyway). We have abandoned this for sometime becuase of the significant amount of blue leak that can occur in the these filters.

Be careful when you buy or use a variable ND. It can be a useful tool as long as you are aware of the limitations.

Single glass ND filters remain the purest optical solution (built-in camera NDs are made from lower quality resin or gel) and should be used whenever possible to ensure maximum image quality but I understand this may not be practical and there is a reason variable ND filters exist.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Leonard Levy · May 3rd, 2010, 07:21 PM

Thanks Ryan , As usual your providing extremely valuable information . Thanks again for trolling these boards.

I've just been playing with a cheap fader ND and comparing it to doubling up my own polarizers. I noticed enormous blue leak when doubling up 2 circular pols ( one was "flipped") , but didn't notice it with a linear pol in front. I will check for that though. I did see very significant softening through the cheaper filter on telephoto lenses but not bad on wide and normal. Looked OK with 2 decent quality pols though. Haven't tested very carefully yet though. Its such an attractive tool for a DSLR especially if you are covering an event where light and camera placement in daylight can change so radically and quickly.

Lenny Levy

Ryan Avery · May 4th, 2010, 10:26 AM

Lenny,

Any time you use filters in front of a telephoto, the requirements for true optical flatness are exponential. This is why the big Canon tele's on DSLRs have rear drop-in filters to reduce the amount of glass that has to be flat.

IF, big IF in my opinion, you were to make your own homemade variable ND, using a circular pol in the rear and a linear pol on the front would be the correct usage. Hence why your tests with circular pols stacked front ways an back created the results they did.

Bottom line: variable NDs can be a useful and fun tool but certainly not the "pro" solution. That being said, I use 'em on occasion. :)

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

John Richard · May 5th, 2010, 07:52 AM

Using the Singh-Ray variable ND I rarely see the blue color effect discussed and when seen it is near the max setting.

And in the rare occasions where it is seen, it is a very simple thing to correct in FCP, Color, Edius, Premiere, or Photoshop for stills. Simple white balance.

Weighing the rare occurence of a slight blue shift against the big savings in time changing out filters to get to my desired DOF is well worth the occasional white balance in post.

When shooting video, we have lost the option of shutter speed adjustment to control aperture for quickly getting desired DOF. The variable ND is a pro option to quickly dial in DOF.

Matt-box filtration is superior if you have a shooting situation and budget that allows it. 4X4 filters with ND grads can knock down a sky while keeping the subject at the exposure you want. Sunset grad filters, pro-mists... and not to mention the best flare protection with flags. But then you have to deal with the extra bulk and attention a large rig can draw at the wrong time.

The right tool for the right job.

May 3rd, 2010, 07:28 AM	#16
Mike Peterson Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: White Bear Lake, Minnesota Posts: 85	I don't understand why you would be saying this. I have a DIY variable ND that is bigger than all my lenses. I have a step up ring for all my lenses to step up into the ND. I have a sunshade that fits the ND, thus the sunshade fits all my lenses, and even if it doesn't it's $4 dude! The cheapest mattebox is see is like $200! __________________ www.insectula.com

May 3rd, 2010, 08:33 AM	#17
Mike Peterson Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: White Bear Lake, Minnesota Posts: 85	Let me qualify a bit...I do not do this for a living. If I was I would certainly spare no expense and purchase the "correct" equipment, also I would want to impress the client with my big camera. As it is I have to sneak a few bucks here and there to purchase the basic nessesities without making the wife unhappy with the money I spend. So you and I look at purchases for this camera in a very differant way...I'm also trying to keep a low profile because I can't afford to rent a location. __________________ www.insectula.com

May 3rd, 2010, 09:13 AM	#18
Liam Hall Major Player Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 969	Mike, there's no right way or wrong way, but there are different ways. You go with whatever solution works for you, but don't come on here suggesting people aren't using their brains when they choose a different route to you. __________________ Writer-Director-DOP www.liamhall.net

May 3rd, 2010, 11:44 AM	#21
Liam Hall Major Player Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 969	Mike, your solution using step up rings will work for some lenses, but not all. For example, I have an 11-16mm Tokina which has a 77mm thread. With a Fader ND (82mm front element) attached it vignettes at 11 and 12mm. I also have a Canon 14mm f/2.8 L. This lens doesn't have a filter thread, so again step-up rings would be useless. __________________ Writer-Director-DOP www.liamhall.net

May 3rd, 2010, 12:48 PM	#22
Mike Peterson Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: White Bear Lake, Minnesota Posts: 85	Yes, these fader ND start having other issues with wide angles such as these. I do have a set of regular NDs as I get color shifts on my widest lenses also. I know it's a video thing but I really wish companies would include in-camera ND's on their SLR's __________________ www.insectula.com

May 3rd, 2010, 09:38 AM	#19
Lucky Haskins Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Plantation, FL Posts: 55	I love starting a thread and then watching it wander all over the place...good stuff guys. Thanks

May 3rd, 2010, 01:38 PM	#23
Ryan Avery Sponsor: Schneider Optics Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Van Nuys, CA Posts: 387	For the record, it is very very (did I emphasize very enough?) hard to make a "variable ND" filter that does not have blue leak. This is because the process of crossing two polarizers causes the blue channel of light to leak through more than others and can wreak havoc on your white balance if you are paying attention. I have owned a Sing-Ray for years for my own personal photography and I have to be very careful with it. It can be a good tool but you have to pay attention to the white balance details if you shift the ND level. This happens mostly at the stronger end of the ND. Schneider does not currently manufacture a variable ND filter (as of May 2010 anyway). We have abandoned this for sometime becuase of the significant amount of blue leak that can occur in the these filters. Be careful when you buy or use a variable ND. It can be a useful tool as long as you are aware of the limitations. Single glass ND filters remain the purest optical solution (built-in camera NDs are made from lower quality resin or gel) and should be used whenever possible to ensure maximum image quality but I understand this may not be practical and there is a reason variable ND filters exist. Ryan Avery Schneider Optics

May 3rd, 2010, 07:21 PM	#24
Leonard Levy Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: USA Posts: 1,684	Thanks Ryan , As usual your providing extremely valuable information . Thanks again for trolling these boards. I've just been playing with a cheap fader ND and comparing it to doubling up my own polarizers. I noticed enormous blue leak when doubling up 2 circular pols ( one was "flipped") , but didn't notice it with a linear pol in front. I will check for that though. I did see very significant softening through the cheaper filter on telephoto lenses but not bad on wide and normal. Looked OK with 2 decent quality pols though. Haven't tested very carefully yet though. Its such an attractive tool for a DSLR especially if you are covering an event where light and camera placement in daylight can change so radically and quickly. Lenny Levy

May 4th, 2010, 10:26 AM	#25
Ryan Avery Sponsor: Schneider Optics Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Van Nuys, CA Posts: 387	Lenny, Any time you use filters in front of a telephoto, the requirements for true optical flatness are exponential. This is why the big Canon tele's on DSLRs have rear drop-in filters to reduce the amount of glass that has to be flat. IF, big IF in my opinion, you were to make your own homemade variable ND, using a circular pol in the rear and a linear pol on the front would be the correct usage. Hence why your tests with circular pols stacked front ways an back created the results they did. Bottom line: variable NDs can be a useful and fun tool but certainly not the "pro" solution. That being said, I use 'em on occasion. :) Ryan Avery Schneider Optics

May 5th, 2010, 07:52 AM	#26
John Richard Major Player Join Date: May 2006 Location: Incline Village, Nevada Posts: 604	Using the Singh-Ray variable ND I rarely see the blue color effect discussed and when seen it is near the max setting. And in the rare occasions where it is seen, it is a very simple thing to correct in FCP, Color, Edius, Premiere, or Photoshop for stills. Simple white balance. Weighing the rare occurence of a slight blue shift against the big savings in time changing out filters to get to my desired DOF is well worth the occasional white balance in post. When shooting video, we have lost the option of shutter speed adjustment to control aperture for quickly getting desired DOF. The variable ND is a pro option to quickly dial in DOF. Matt-box filtration is superior if you have a shooting situation and budget that allows it. 4X4 filters with ND grads can knock down a sky while keeping the subject at the exposure you want. Sunset grad filters, pro-mists... and not to mention the best flare protection with flags. But then you have to deal with the extra bulk and attention a large rig can draw at the wrong time. The right tool for the right job.