DIY Fader vs LCW Fader ND Mark 2

G

Gene Sung

Veteran
So I wasn't too happy with the Fader Mark 2 (New version) as it seemed soft still when shot with 200mm + lens.

So I made the DIY fader (Circular Polarizer with Linear Polarizer screwed on top) using good quality Hoya filters.

I did a test shot at f2.8 using both Faders and the DIY Fader was much sharper. You can see so much more detail with the DIY. I also tested it against regular Tiffen ND filters and the IQ was the same, so DIY fader = no resolution loss.

I tested it multiple times with the same results.

The screen grab should be on this thread. if not, here's the link

http://www.builtbyugene.com/images_client/diyfader.jpg

I tested this quite a bit with different lenses. I've come to the conclusion that the lower the aperture, the softer the LCW Fader ND is.

up to 50mm, there seems to be no IQ loss with the Fader ND. At 85mm, it's a bit softer.

At 200mm, the LCW is pretty soft while the DIY version loses no IQ.

So I just use the LCW on my 55mm lens and lower and on anything above 85mm, I'd use the DIY.

I'm sure the DIY is everybit as sharp as the Singh-Ray and costs way less. Plus, you can polarize with it also which is nice. But that's a bit of a pain as there are 2 rings to turn.
 

Attachments

  • diyfader.jpg
    diyfader.jpg
    68.9 KB · Views: 0
The good thing about the LCW Fader is you get NO vignetting. Even on the Tokina 11-16 at 11mm, there is no vignetting at all. Not possible with the DIY, so I would use the DIY on longer lenses.
 
Your tests are exactly the same results as mine, but I didn't record mine I just eyeballed them using the 5x's and 10x's features of the canon. Actually though I didn't have a MarkII LCW ti compare with, just a knockoff.

I've been wondering if I can take knockoff apart and replace with new glass in the same one piece housing. The outside filter is easy but the inner one isn't obvious - tho they must have put it together somehow.
 
Thanks for the example. I just got a Fader MarkII... I've already got a B+W MRC cir-pol... Using all B+W puts me in the mid-point ($) of the Fader and Singh Ray... so it's not like that's a cheap route (and I expect the sharpness to be clearly superior with the B+W combo).

Then the decision will be whether or not to keep the Fader... if it's acceptable for wide angle then I'll most likely keep it anyway... I'll add my results to this thread once I get a linear.
 
gene_can_sing said:
The good thing about the LCW Fader is you get NO vignetting. Even on the Tokina 11-16 at 11mm, there is no vignetting at all. Not possible with the DIY, so I would use the DIY on longer lenses.
Click to expand...
Would you get vignetting on a 28mm?

And wow, those images are a big difference, I think I'll go the DIY route since I need a polarizer anyway and im cheap
 
The DIY vignette depends on what size filters you use and on the lens itself.

With a 77>82 step up then a B+W circular pola and tiffen linear on my Canon 17-55 I lost the vignette around 28mm and on my Tokina 11-16 at 13.5mm.

If you really worked at it you could pull the polas out of the rotating rings and put them in standard rings then just use the threads to adjust the gree of pola & ND. You would save a few millimeters that way.

I just eyeballed a Fader ND that I replaced the oiutside filter with a new Tiffen linear . It still seems to soften a bit but not too bad. Color is a little greener though. I don't know if that's the tiffen or the underlying fader ND circular pol.

Driving me a bit crazy to tell you the truth. I may also keep the fader ND for wide angle and use the DIY for longer lenses.

Lenny
 
Hey, what Hoya polarizer filters did you use? I got 100 bucks to try a DIY one, did you use the normal Circular/Linear ones, or the HMC ones.

the only lenses I got are 58/52mm mounts, should I get the 58mm filters? Would there be any vignetting past say 25mm (40mm on aps-c)
 
This is exactly the thread I was waiting for. I tried the Fader ND Mark 1 and was disappointed, and the shots I've seen using the Mark 2 are no better.

Now I'm torn between the Vari-N-Duo or DIY. I need polarization, so the Vari-ND is out. I'd love to have the ability to use a polarizer by itself at times, but not at the cost of usability or vignetting. The widest lens I have for my T2i is the Tokina 11-16, so vignetting is definitely a concern.
 
I just purchased the MarkII both in 77 and 58mm to shoot my fathers music video next week. I haven't received them yet and I'm getting kinda bummed reading all of this. I heard nothing but good things about the mark II and knew that it would soften the image ever so slightly, but nothing to shake a stick at. Are they really that bad? I'm going to be mounting them on a 24-70 2.8 and 50 1.4. :(
 
I've had great results with the LCW Mark II, even with the Tokina 11-16.

The only issues seem to come with super telephoto, but, for the price and convenience, I wouldn't shoot without it.
 
you know with wides it doesnt really matter that much because this 11 mm lens you can close down to cut the light ,you dont even have possibilities to use its shallow DOF,everything on wides looks retarded when its very close.Thats why we care about telephotos and this is where fader ND fails.
 
Shooting video with the 7D, my shutter speeds are very specific, I have no idea how I'd shoot in daylight without a Fader.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top