Neutral Density filters for a 5D...

Jeremy Nicholl · July 11th, 2009, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoff Brandon

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.

Phil Bloom · July 11th, 2009, 06:15 AM

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

Geoff Brandon · July 11th, 2009, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeremy Nicholl

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.

Geoff Brandon · July 11th, 2009, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil Bloom

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

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?

Nigel Barker · July 13th, 2009, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoff Brandon

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.

Marcus Marchesseault · July 14th, 2009, 05:27 AM

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.

Olof Ekbergh · July 14th, 2009, 06:03 AM

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".

Lenny Travis · July 14th, 2009, 06:57 AM

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)

Marcus Marchesseault · July 14th, 2009, 02:21 PM

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.

Olof Ekbergh · July 14th, 2009, 04:57 PM

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.

Nigel Barker · July 15th, 2009, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus Marchesseault

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.

Toenis Liivamaegi · July 15th, 2009, 03:51 AM

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

Marcus Marchesseault · July 15th, 2009, 02:37 PM

"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.

Phil Bloom · July 22nd, 2009, 01:45 PM

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!

Dan Brockett · July 22nd, 2009, 02:41 PM

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

July 11th, 2009, 06:15 AM	#47
Phil Bloom Trustee Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: London UK Posts: 1,939	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 __________________ Philip Bloom Cinematographer, Director, Filmmaker www.philipbloom.net

July 22nd, 2009, 01:45 PM	#59
Phil Bloom Trustee Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: London UK Posts: 1,939	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! __________________ Philip Bloom Cinematographer, Director, Filmmaker www.philipbloom.net

July 14th, 2009, 05:27 AM	#51
Marcus Marchesseault Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 1,961	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.

July 14th, 2009, 06:03 AM	#52
Olof Ekbergh Sponsor: Westside AV Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Mount Washington Valley, NH, USA Posts: 1,365	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".

July 14th, 2009, 06:57 AM	#53
Lenny Travis Tourist Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Oviedo, Spain Posts: 1	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)

July 14th, 2009, 02:21 PM	#54
Marcus Marchesseault Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 1,961	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.

July 14th, 2009, 04:57 PM	#55
Olof Ekbergh Sponsor: Westside AV Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Mount Washington Valley, NH, USA Posts: 1,365	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.

July 15th, 2009, 03:51 AM	#57
Toenis Liivamaegi Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Tartu, Estonia Posts: 579	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

July 15th, 2009, 02:37 PM	#58
Marcus Marchesseault Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 1,961	"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.

July 22nd, 2009, 02:41 PM	#60
Dan Brockett Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 2,109	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