PDA

View Full Version : Idea for solving missing ND problem.



cheezweezl
05-26-2011, 01:20 AM
Tell me if I'm nuts...

I got my fotodiox nex-eos adapter yesterday. The adapter is pretty big to make up for the flange distance required for eos lenses. I'm thinking of mounting a filter ring inside the adapter that I could screw an nd onto when needed. I would probably just use a uv filter and take the glass out. Then secure the ring inside the adapter with jb weld or silicone or something.

Anybody see any potential problems with this?

Another thing I could do is just hard mount a fader nd inside the adapter, then have one adapter with, and one without the fader. Basically one indoor and one outdoor adapter.

Postmaster
05-26-2011, 02:51 AM
Whatīs wrong with a matte box and a set of nice NDs?
Most professionals have a rail system and a matte box on the camera anyway (and for good reasons, I might say).
Why not doing the most obvious thing and just use them?

Frank

morgan_moore
05-26-2011, 03:04 AM
because a quick lens change - say from the 17-55 to 80-200 nikkors that Im planning is a PITA in fast shooting environs with a MB

ectobuilder
05-26-2011, 03:09 AM
Tell me if I'm nuts...

I got my fotodiox nex-eos adapter yesterday. The adapter is pretty big to make up for the flange distance required for eos lenses. I'm thinking of mounting a filter ring inside the adapter that I could screw an nd onto when needed. I would probably just use a uv filter and take the glass out. Then secure the ring inside the adapter with jb weld or silicone or something.

Anybody see any potential problems with this?

Another thing I could do is just hard mount a fader nd inside the adapter, then have one adapter with, and one without the fader. Basically one indoor and one outdoor adapter.

This guy has a good suggestion (Super 35mm Seminar video):
http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/video/videon.do

nyvz
05-26-2011, 05:36 AM
I'm considering just always leaving my fader nd on, since iso800 is often overkill even for interiors... Otherwise taking it on and off between int/ext shots isnt really that big of a deal.

cheezweezl
05-26-2011, 08:16 AM
Whatīs wrong with a matte box and a set of nice NDs?
Most professionals have a rail system and a matte box on the camera anyway (and for good reasons, I might say).
Why not doing the most obvious thing and just use them?

Frank


I have a mattebox and a set of nd. Fine for when you're on set but not so handy when you're just out shooting or if you're stealing shots in the city.

Duke M.
05-26-2011, 08:19 AM
Anybody see any potential problems with this?

Taking the adapter and lens off over and over is going to take as much time or more than swinging the mattebox out of the way to change lenses once in awhile. You'll change the ND filter strength more often than a lens if you're using zoom lenses.

Postmaster
05-26-2011, 10:07 AM
I have a mattebox and a set of nd. Fine for when you're on set but not so handy when you're just out shooting or if you're stealing shots in the city.


because a quick lens change - say from the 17-55 to 80-200 nikkors that Im planning is a PITA in fast shooting environs with a MB


LOL - everybody seems to be into "ultrafast and light - run and gun - steeling shots - donīt have no time - in the subway - environs only these days.

I wonder how you guys do get your shots?
I mean, if you have no time (letīs say 2 minutes max) to change a matte box, filter and lens, how long does it take you, to get your light setup and framing? Or are you shooting everything without lights, scrims, flags and all handheld/shoulder?

Frank

cheezweezl
05-26-2011, 10:25 AM
Frank,

I never said I don't have time to change an ND filter. It's just that there are times that carrying around a fully rigged camera and extra cases for filters etc, is not desirable, or not possible. Besides, for full production style shoots, I'm usually renting a RED. This cam, for me, is my portable, guerilla, run and gun, low budget, call it whatever you want camera. It's basically replacing my 7D and kinda taking the place of my EX1.

Are you saying that you never just go shoot in available light? Some beautiful things can happen with proper planning and thinking on your feet. If the only way you shoot is with a fully rigged camera, full crew, permits, a huge g&e truck, etc., then that's fine. But I then would ask you why you would choose a $5000 camera to do it rather than renting a RED or Alexa or whatever. Not that the FS100 couldn't produce great results, just that if money is being spent to put on a production like what we're talking about, why not go for a little more quality since it's soooo cheap to rent?

imag
05-26-2011, 10:26 AM
I'm planning on going the Lee Filters route. It allows up to 4 filters and clips on quickly to the adaptor on the lens. Each lens will have its own adapter (they are all different sizes anyway).

Advantages: it's smaller, faster, and cheaper than a matte box. It also preserves the ability to use good filters, rotate polas, and locate gradients.

cheezweezl
05-26-2011, 10:29 AM
Taking the adapter and lens off over and over is going to take as much time or more than swinging the mattebox out of the way to change lenses once in awhile. You'll change the ND filter strength more often than a lens if you're using zoom lenses.

Not really. I mean, as light changes, you will have to possibly adjust ND. I assume you're talking about cheap zooms. Speaking for myself, I have constant aperture zooms only. So if I shoot at the same stop with all my lenses, and the light stays the same, I will rarely touch the ND....

morgan_moore
05-26-2011, 10:36 AM
LOL - everybody seems to be into "ultrafast and light - run and gun - steeling shots - donīt have no time - in the subway - environs only these days.

I wonder how you guys do get your shots?
I mean, if you have no time (letīs say 2 minutes max) to change a matte box, filter and lens, how long does it take you, to get your light setup and framing? Or are you shooting everything without lights, scrims, flags and all handheld/shoulder?

Frank

Well its not just about shooting indy crap in subways

You are obviously from a structured cinematography background - a fne place to be

In fact the place where you should probably use an F3 or a Red because it would minimally impact in overall budget

The FS100 is more of a budget camera

Maybe for the corporate or wedding shooter

Now if you are shooting a wedding the bride will come out of the car and into a church, defo an point where you will need an ND swap

and that ND swap needs to happen really really fast unless you are going to mess up the proceedings

Now such a shooter should probably use a camera such as an EX1 - which apart from missing 'the cine look' is eminently suitable for the job

however certain shooters like myself dont want to do such jobs 'good enough' we want to bring that cine and low light facility to the work

Here the FS is the perfect tool right on budget

Its not that we dont have time to make the shots its that when reality (not fiction) moves forward you NEED to work fast

I work with clients who are used to working with EX1/Z1 crews and expect a certain speed of operation - you know the corporate MD who is in a hurry

I intednd to bring them that low hassle and speed an AND bring them more too.. a cinematic edge .. but the speed and reliability come first

Im shoot a 'celeb' on sunday morning - I think we have him for 10mins on his diary - I know he will be 5 mins late and his PR will want him to leave 5 mins early !


S

EDIT: to answer the question : yep a lot is handheld and natural light

.. and with some compositional skill and a 50 at F2.8 it looks great

cheezweezl
05-26-2011, 12:00 PM
ok cool. now that we've established that there is more than one way to shoot video, can we get back to the point? anybody got any thoughts on my ND idea (i mean the actual physical idea, not the concept of why i would do it to begin with)?

imag
05-26-2011, 12:09 PM
Couple thoughts-

1. That's a pretty small fader ND.

2. If I understand your idea, adjusting the fader means removing the lens, which seems like a pain.

3. If you don't use a fader, then it will probably be fastest to meter before you put the lens on to make sure you have the right amount of ND. If you permanently attach a fixed amount of ND, it will be helpful, but not super-helpful.

4. I could see potential issues with internal reflections. It has already been noted that this can be a problem with non-baffled adapters; putting a filter in there *could* make it worse. There's one way to find out...

5. There *might* be an issue with vignetting depending upon the filter size - but with the FS100 sensor size, I doubt it.

mico
05-26-2011, 12:31 PM
sing ray, faders , genus faders, cokin system. Run and gun solutions have been invented for the run and gun low profilers.

If those aren't fast enough for you then this camera is not for you, try an af100 for the cinema look with in camera nd's

Honestly doing weddings with this camera where you don't even have a second dictates you put a zoom lens on with a fader type nd and whats faster than that?

morgan_moore
05-26-2011, 12:34 PM
ok cool. now that we've established that there is more than one way to shoot video, can we get back to the point? anybody got any thoughts on my ND idea (i mean the actual physical idea, not the concept of why i would do it to begin with)?

I think it is a great idea

Having no onboard ND is a right pain, almost pushing me F3 wards

it needs to be drop in like a nikkor 400 2.8

S

olindacat
05-26-2011, 12:52 PM
I'm planning on going the Lee Filters route. It allows up to 4 filters and clips on quickly to the adaptor on the lens. Each lens will have its own adapter (they are all different sizes anyway).

Advantages: it's smaller, faster, and cheaper than a matte box. It also preserves the ability to use good filters, rotate polas, and locate gradients.

That what I've been using for years. Aside from UVs to protect my glass, the Lee is durable and fast. The cases take up space so 8-10 filters becomes a hassle to carry, but I manage to fit them into my bag and they have been great over the years. Changing a circular everytime you want a different filter is unnecessary with this.

Postmaster
05-26-2011, 01:09 PM
EDIT: to answer the question : yep a lot is handheld and natural light

.. and with some compositional skill and a 50 at F2.8 it looks great

Now I get it - you guys have a way different shooting style.
I do (or have to do) that kind of shooting sometmes, but I often was disappointed with the results I achieved.
Thats probably why Iīm s anal about controlling everything, from framing to lighting.

To get back on topic (and out on a limb),

instead of mounting a filter ring inside the adapter, could you split the adapter in the middle and lathe the exact(!) amount away a ND fader takes?
then you would have an adapter, with an ND fade in the middle, which means you could turn it like an iris ring.

You also would need some mechanism that locks the whole shebang, so that it is not turning unwanted, while focusing.

A good machine shop should b able to do this for a song and a dance.

Frank

morgan_moore
05-26-2011, 01:26 PM
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/telephotos/Nikkor400mmf35sEDIF/Digitized-FUTURE12.jpg

cheezweezl
05-26-2011, 01:31 PM
i was just thinking about cutting a slot in the top of the adapter, along with building some structure on the inside, that would allow a standard round ND filter to be dropped in. I'm thinking something like 52-58mm off the top of my head. then i could have like a 3 filter set in a pouch, in my pocket, that i could just drop in an anytime. this would actually give me a little more flexibility over the F3, which has only two ND filters.

imag
05-26-2011, 02:27 PM
i was just thinking about cutting a slot in the top of the adapter, along with building some structure on the inside, that would allow a standard round ND filter to be dropped in. I'm thinking something like 52-58mm off the top of my head. then i could have like a 3 filter set in a pouch, in my pocket, that i could just drop in an anytime. this would actually give me a little more flexibility over the F3, which has only two ND filters.

I would worry about light leaks and debris on the chip. It would be handy if it worked.

Postmaster
05-26-2011, 03:03 PM
Hmmm.....

ATiK Manual Filter Wheel

http://www.modernastronomy.com/images/products/atikfilterwheelsmall.jpg


The Atik manual filter wheel allows you to switch between 5 x 1.25" filters without removing the camera. At the same time the filters are always safely stored and protected against dew. This filter wheel is well suited to both imaging and visual use (with optional visual back) and is the most robust low profile filter wheel available at this price level. The wheel has female T threads at both ends with a 1.25" nosepiece and a lockable & rotateable male T thread adapter.

http://www.modernastronomy.com/filters.html

cheezweezl
05-26-2011, 03:07 PM
I would worry about light leaks and debris on the chip. It would be handy if it worked.

yeah, that concerns me too. it would have to be something pretty solid. i think i'm getting too complicated here. i'm going back to my original idea of mounting threads inside so i can screw in whatever strength of nd i want. i figure i can pop on a lens at the stop i want. then see how many stops down it takes to get to the exposure i want, then pop in whatever ND knocks down the same number of stops. then i'm set, even with lens changes as long as my stop and the light stays the same. or for instance, if i'm gonna go out and shoot a bunch of sunny day b-roll, i could just throw in say a ND 1.8 and go pretty much all day with it.

imag
05-26-2011, 03:54 PM
yeah, that concerns me too. it would have to be something pretty solid. i think i'm getting too complicated here. i'm going back to my original idea of mounting threads inside so i can screw in whatever strength of nd i want. i figure i can pop on a lens at the stop i want. then see how many stops down it takes to get to the exposure i want, then pop in whatever ND knocks down the same number of stops. then i'm set, even with lens changes as long as my stop and the light stays the same. or for instance, if i'm gonna go out and shoot a bunch of sunny day b-roll, i could just throw in say a ND 1.8 and go pretty much all day with it.

That makes much more sense to me. I think the swapping or add-on filter wheel can only work with a fully engineered product. I wouldn't be surprised if some adapter company decided to build an adapter/wheel combo...

cheezweezl
06-01-2011, 02:53 AM
Finally made it to the camera store today. After trying many sizes, I found that a 46mm filter is a perfect fit inside the fotodiox e/eos adapter. I got a plain UV filter from which I removed the glass. I'm mounting the ring inside the adapter now. I just ordered a couple of 46mm tiffen nd's from amazon. They will be here on Friday and hopefully my fs100 will be too. Will report back with results.

imag
06-01-2011, 08:03 AM
Cool. Curious to see how it goes. Good for you for trying this out.

David W. Jones
06-01-2011, 11:55 AM
You could run into collimation issues by mounting a filter at the wrong point back there.

cheezweezl
06-01-2011, 12:23 PM
You could run into collimation issues by mounting a filter at the wrong point back there.

How is that possible? The lens flange distance will not change. Wouldn't this be the same as having an nd filter wheel? It's just an nd behind the lens...

David W. Jones
06-01-2011, 12:39 PM
The filter will act as lens element and optically increase the flange focal depth by one third the thickness of the filter.

Barry_Green
06-01-2011, 12:59 PM
Yep. That's why a filter wheel behind the lens also has a position for an optical clear element -- to keep the optics the same. If you look at a lens that uses rear-mounted filters (such as the Peleng 8mm) you'll see that they always include a clear filter too, for that purpose.

cheezweezl
06-01-2011, 02:36 PM
ahhhh... gotcha. thanks guys for that bit of info. i swear i never stop learning from this site.

hopefully, it won't be a big deal. i wasn't expecting this non-adjustable mount to be 100% accurate anyway. plus i'm using mostly canon L glass. so the focus rings aren't fixed. which would make it tough to focus by witness marks. my strategy is to use peaking and go by eyeball. so as long as this filter thing doesn't hose me on hitting infinity, i think i'll be ok. if it does, then it's back to the drawing board...

imag
06-01-2011, 03:29 PM
I think they are pointing out that this is a back focus issue - not adjustable with lens focusing. You would need to change the thickness of your adapter to accommodate the issue.

cheezweezl
06-01-2011, 05:34 PM
I think they are pointing out that this is a back focus issue - not adjustable with lens focusing. You would need to change the thickness of your adapter to accommodate the issue.

i realize that. when i said "adjustable" i meant that there is no back focus or collimation adjustment. i don't expect this fotodiox lens adapter to be 100% accurate as far as flange depth/back focus/collimation goes, before i did anything to it. hopefully my ND idea doesn't mess me up so that i can't hit infinity. otherwise, i don't care if the witness marks are accurate.

Rick Burnett
06-01-2011, 09:42 PM
So I am doing something similar, I am mounting two polarizers in my second adapter and am creating an area to adjust one of them. So basically, a faderND inside the mount. :)

cheezweezl
06-01-2011, 10:21 PM
here's a pic of mine with the filter ring installed. i used some gorilla glue to mount it. pretty solid. my ND's don't come in until tomorrow. i will report back as to how easy it is to screw them in, etc. i will be getting my FS100 tomorrow as well so i will test this thing out and see what happens.

https://files.me.com/fisherfilmworks/fi5zym

Rick Burnett
06-01-2011, 10:32 PM
Okay, same mount as me. I too got the filter rings, but I am going to mount the rainbowimaging 52mm (hopefully) in the larger part of the adapter. Given our projects are so similar and I am using your idea of the filter ring to attach (and I will get some gorilla glue) I will post my results in here as well.

One thing I do need to find is at least a crappy color chart (I don't want to spend on a pricy one yet) so I can shoot at different focal lengths to see what I get.

J Davis
06-01-2011, 10:35 PM
If you are ever shooting with diffusion, soft fx, promist, smoque or any other filter you will want it stacked between the ND and the lens

cheezweezl
06-01-2011, 11:24 PM
If you are ever shooting with diffusion, soft fx, promist, smoque or any other filter you will want it stacked between the ND and the lens

lol. i was already thinking of a way to attach some white and black pantyhose to a filter ring...

cheezweezl
06-01-2011, 11:30 PM
SIDEBAR: hey rick, are you mounting your camera on rods? if so, have you figured out a way to attach this adapter to the rods via the little 14"/20 mount? i use my 70-200L all the time and it is a heavy monster. i don't want to let the camera take all that weight. i'm not sure what the clearance above the rods will be but i think it's gonna be short. gotta find some sort of support. maybe zacuto makes something.

J Davis
06-01-2011, 11:31 PM
I meant the front of the lens :)

cheezweezl
06-02-2011, 01:04 AM
I meant the front of the lens :)

oh. have you ever tried pantyhose on the back of the lens? on the 7d, i just stretch them tight over the rear element and put the lens on. it trashes the pantyhose doing this so they're only good for one or two uses, but it looks great!!!

Rick Burnett
06-02-2011, 10:45 AM
SIDEBAR: hey rick, are you mounting your camera on rods? if so, have you figured out a way to attach this adapter to the rods via the little 14"/20 mount? i use my 70-200L all the time and it is a heavy monster. i don't want to let the camera take all that weight. i'm not sure what the clearance above the rods will be but i think it's gonna be short. gotta find some sort of support. maybe zacuto makes something.

I haven't yet. When I get my FS100 in on Saturday I will probably look and see if anything I have can do this.

Amos Kim
06-03-2011, 03:33 AM
Anybody know if IR contamination would be a problem with all these ND filters? I think there are special IR/ND filters, but not sure if they are necessary for the FS100.

cheezweezl
06-03-2011, 03:46 AM
great success!!!

i received one of my nd's today. it screws right in. the image seems to be fine. no vignetting or anything. focus doesn't seem to be thrown off either.

Rick Burnett
06-03-2011, 08:36 AM
Anybody know if IR contamination would be a problem with all these ND filters? I think there are special IR/ND filters, but not sure if they are necessary for the FS100.

I'd imagine there is probably an IR filter along with the OLPF on the sensor, however, this is just a guess based on other sensors I have researched.

Amos Kim
06-05-2011, 11:39 AM
can anybody confirm rick's guess?

MattDavis
06-05-2011, 01:00 PM
It will be one of my tests as soon as mine arrives (tomorrow?), but I feel that the EX1's IR was a sort of 'over-enthusiasm' from the design team in the 'Pro' side of Sony. As the FS100 hails from the same side as the Z1, Z7 et al, it won't have that sensitivity - and as the EX1R is much less of a problem, I'd imagine Sony would have learned from that little escapade.

But there's nowt like testing for real.

eheath
06-06-2011, 02:20 AM
Ive been consdiering the fs100 as my next camera and i guess im not in the most time-stressed situations, but i plan on buying a LCW fader ND MKII and using step down rings to attach to my other lenses (hopefully a 77m nd fader, with 77-67 and 77-52) and ill be set for the 3 zooms ill probably buy (11-16, 17-50, 80-200) and any other nikon prime i hope to use. For about 150 bucks, theres my ND filter setup. Im sure for some of you guys that wont work as well, but its way cheaper than buying a matte box, which im not exactly ready for quite yet anyways :)

bkmvincent
06-06-2011, 11:15 AM
Ive been consdiering the fs100 as my next camera and i guess im not in the most time-stressed situations, but i plan on buying a LCW fader ND MKII and using step down rings to attach to my other lenses (hopefully a 77m nd fader, with 77-67 and 77-52) and ill be set for the 3 zooms ill probably buy (11-16, 17-50, 80-200) and any other nikon prime i hope to use. For about 150 bucks, theres my ND filter setup. Im sure for some of you guys that wont work as well, but its way cheaper than buying a matte box, which im not exactly ready for quite yet anyways :)

If I take the plunge, this is probably going to be very similar to my ND situation. I have a 70-200mm and a 17-35mm that both have 77mm threads, the only other lens is a 50mm, which I would certainly need a step-up ring for (77-52 I think)

Stephen Mick
06-06-2011, 11:17 AM
For the footage I shot over the weekend (see other thread) I used my 77mm Vari-ND with a 67-77 step ring on the Sony 18-200mm "kit" lens. Combined with the easy gain and iris adjustments, I didn't miss built-in ND filters.

Rick Burnett
06-06-2011, 11:22 AM
For the footage I shot over the weekend (see other thread) I used my 77mm Vari-ND with a 67-77 step ring on the Sony 18-200mm "kit" lens. Combined with the easy gain and iris adjustments, I didn't miss built-in ND filters.

How was the color handling? I have a 77 as well (FaderND) and I have used it mostly with my 30mm only. There were a few threads with people using these at wide angles (like 11-16mm) and tele (300mm) and the pictures they posted DEFINITELY had some color issues I could easily see. This is one of the reasons for me moving the fader to after the lens. It would at least be consistent lens to lens with respect to the sensor.

Stephen Mick
06-06-2011, 11:25 AM
The only time I've ever had an issue with my Vari-ND was when I was using it on my Tokina 11-16. At that wide, there are some issues, but my other ND was at the bottom of the Amazon River. :D

When using it with that 18-200 lens, I didn't see any issues with color shifting or the like. The images looked clean and sharp.

Rick Burnett
06-06-2011, 11:32 AM
Excellent. Well I just got my 52mm ND in, and I need one more part to arrive and I will be building my post lens fader. I do have the Tokina 11-16 so I can test that. I am just going to print out a color chart locally and use that. No, the colors won't be accurate to say actual colors, but in comparing pre and post lens, and from 11 to 135mm (as high as my current lenses go) we can at least look at what the color does.

Given I have a shoot this sunday, I'll just stick to 30mm on up and use my 77mm for now. The only pain I have with the FaderND is that I cannot use the lens hoods of my lenses with it. Need to find a solution for that.

Amos Kim
06-07-2011, 09:33 AM
Tiffen Spokeswoman says their new variable nd filter is completely neutral here:

YouTube - ‪NAB 2011 - Filmtools talks to Tiffen about their new Variable ND Filter‬‏ (http://youtu.be/tFlfRt4SEp8)

But they don't mention that in their online print ads.

thxdave
06-07-2011, 10:47 AM
I have heard that Schneider will have a 77mm round version of their 11-stop Vari-ND coming soon.

Rick Burnett
06-07-2011, 10:51 AM
Darn, the variND I bought is too big to fit in the adapter. Guess I will have to build one. Does anyone remember which type of polarizers I need to build a custom VariND filter?

Ivanhurba
06-07-2011, 12:20 PM
circular outside, linear to the lens. But I think it works with two fine linear ones. Enjoy the hack!

Rick Burnett
06-07-2011, 12:59 PM
Alright, ordered. Going with Hoya for now for the test. Should be here in 2 days and this experiment can continue! :)

cheezweezl
06-07-2011, 01:31 PM
rick,

i don't know if you have an eos adapter, but if so, 46mm is the perfect size to rest on the lip near the e-mount. and i think 49mm is the biggest that will fit past the eos mount. that is unless you are taking the eos mount off to get a bigger filter inside.

Rick Burnett
06-07-2011, 01:38 PM
I took off the EOS mount to get inside, and the 52mm side of the filter fits, it's the fact the Variable ND is actually larger on one side that I didn't think about. So I just bought a circular and linear 52mm. I am also using 2 step rings. One will be glued in that the polarizer closest to the sensor will be glued to as well. I do not want that to rotate. The second one will be attached to the first. Then, another step up ring will be used so I can drill a hole in it and mount a rod that will pass through a slot in the adapter that I am cutting so that I can rotate from outside. If that all makes sense :)

NeedCreative
06-07-2011, 01:41 PM
I see some color cast (to my eye, not measured) when I used the LCW fader II. I can compensate in WB pretty easily though... the Sony even allows you to account for that in the menus though I couldn't explain how... I just read it in the manual.

Rick Burnett
06-07-2011, 01:44 PM
I read that as well, and I too am not sure specifically how to account for it either. But, need to get adapter built first THEN I will look at calibrating what I see.

thxdave
06-07-2011, 08:47 PM
The Schneider guys refer to one of the problems as "blue leak" but I'm not sure if that occurs across all the brands of variable ND's.

alarch
06-08-2011, 04:43 AM
I was thinking of using my Fader ND ULTRA mark II.
Howether when you want to use the lens hood its really anoying if not sometimes impossible on some lenses because the fader is larger than the lens.
So I thaught of buying a rubber lens hood that I would stick on top of the 82mm thread of my 77mm fader; I threfore should be able to change stops by turning the hood.

I'll tell you how it works when it comes in

NeedCreative
06-08-2011, 07:02 AM
Yeah I miss the lens hood too. Let me know how that solution works for you

Rick Burnett
06-08-2011, 09:06 AM
Yes! Please let us know how that works!!!

cheezweezl
06-08-2011, 02:11 PM
Abort!!! Abort!!!

This method is no good. I just finally got to shoot some daytime footy with the rear NDs. No go. Really screws up the flange distance to the point where I cant even come close to infinity on wide lenses. My 28 and my tokina 11-16 included. I guess it's fader nd and a bunch of step rings for the portable setup....

Rick Burnett
06-08-2011, 02:18 PM
Since I already ordered, going to continue with my experiment! :) Question, with the filter in place, do you need the lens further or closer to the sensor? I am not opposed to modifying my adapter to test.

FelixGER
06-08-2011, 03:17 PM
Can I attach a sunshade like this
http://www.amazon.de/Matin-M-5927-Gummi-Gegenlichtblende-Streulichtblende-Sonnenblende/dp/B001CLPVSC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307567688&sr=8-1
on the Tiffen Vari ND?

Canīt find any info on their website.

jetswing
06-08-2011, 03:37 PM
Can I attach a sunshade like this
http://www.amazon.de/Matin-M-5927-Gummi-Gegenlichtblende-Streulichtblende-Sonnenblende/dp/B001CLPVSC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307567688&sr=8-1
on the Tiffen Vari ND?

Canīt find any info on their website.

Can't read German...how do you attach this shade to the lens? I don't know about Tiffen but I have the FaderND...pretty much the only way you can attach anything to it is if you screw it on to it's filter threads (has it on both ends).

FelixGER
06-08-2011, 03:41 PM
screw it on to it's filter threads (has it on both ends).

Thatīs what I wanted to know^^

jetswing
06-08-2011, 03:59 PM
Here is is: http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-Screw-Collapsible-Rubber-Shade/dp/B001K399BC/ref=pd_sim_p_2

I might give this a shot. I just have to find the right size. Speaking of size, vari-NDs have different ring sizes on each end so if you get 77mm filter, you would need 82mm(?) for the hood.