Fader ND Mk.II is still kinda "meh" for telephoto

shaocaholica

shaocaholica

Well-known member
**IMPORTANT UPDATE**

I emailed my results to LCW a few days ago and they go back to me yesterday. They said that the results I'm seeing are not consistent with what they believe is normal. I think they are going to test on their end at 400mm and get back to me. So until then, please take my test (The one in the first post) with a grain of salt.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just got my shiny new Fader ND Mk.II 77mm filter. I already had a 400mm setup for some backyard critters and decided to pop it on for a try. I knew that telephoto performance with these variable ND filters was bad but apparently the Mk.II was supposed to be "improved". BTW, I got the filter direct from LCW webstore and its got the fancy hologram on the box so I'm pretty sure its not a knockoff. Anyway, here are my observations:

FaderNDII.jpg



With Fader ND Mk.II at ~20%
IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE



Without any filters
IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE
 
Last edited:
Whoa! That's like going from HD to SD! Maybe I should get a mattebox and 4x4's instead. Thanks for the info! :beer:
 
gabrielflorit said:
Whoa! That's like going from HD to SD! Maybe I should get a mattebox and 4x4's instead. Thanks for the info! :beer:
Click to expand...

Well it still works with shorter focal lengths without too much resolution loss but I'm still disappointed I can't use it with my 400.
 
I had the exact same experience with the Fader Mark 2. I compared it to my the old Fader ND and it was barely any different. I'll post the pics later when I get home.

Still... on a shorter lens for run-and-gun documentary style pics, the Fader is almost a must have.
 
Good to know, although dissapointing. 4x4 pro glass is probably worth it in the end, but ofc the ND has it uses.
 
and i have one on the way :( good thing i didnt have to pay for it. dissappointing though. up to what focal length is it usable?
 
Thanks for this. I was wondering if they were any better. Guess not.

I'm still waiting for someone with a Vari-ND and/or Vari-N-Duo to post a similar before/after filter shot for comparison.
 
I just got mine, but havent had a chance to use it yet.

How is it 17-100mm or so?

if its good through that range, ill be happy.
 
Perhaps the below video will be of interest. I used a Tamron 17 - 50, a Canon 28-135 and a LCW Fader ND. At 28 it looks pretty good - Initial pan across the granite. At 135 the video looks very soft - the pan to the top of the cliff (2:47). The final pan at 5:22 also looks soft.

All shot at 1/60.

Overall, it was great to use and it is nice to be able to dial in the exposure while keeping your frame rate. What I learned is that before I commit to doing something important with the Fader, I need to know exactly how it will behave and what behavior is acceptable. I only live 2.5 hours from Yos - I can easily go back but what if I were doing something I could not go back to?

http://thelearningpathway.com/blog/2010/05/royal-arch-cascade-yosemite/


I hope this is helpful to your discussion.
 
Given that we're currently under Flood Warnings and Storm Watches, I may have to do the testing inside. But I do have a DSC Labs "chart" that I'll use when I get out from under the mountain of work that needs to get done.
 
I mentioned this in the original thread about this but no one got back to me.

The LCW dual filter assembly is setup so that it's easy to remove the outside filter element. (the linear pol. if I'm not mistaken). It's just that threaded thin ring design that allows easy removal.


Since the 'collective collection' of filters on this site is greater than what I can find at my one local po dunk camera shop within an hour's drive, if someone can tell me a brand of a decent filter that has the same threaded retention system of the LCW outside filter, I'd be happy to buy it, throw it in and post some results.

After having my LCW apart, I'm kind of convinced the outside element is garbage and largely responsible for the fuzzies we're all getting on bigger lenses.


Thanks for the comparison shaocaholica. I was curious about these when they announced them. (two days after I got my first gen one)
 
Stephen Mick said:
Given that we're currently under Flood Warnings and Storm Watches, I may have to do the testing inside. But I do have a DSC Labs "chart" that I'll use when I get out from under the mountain of work that needs to get done.
Click to expand...

Sounds good. I'm also really curious whether there's a color cast with the Vari-ND. If you keep the white balance constant in your tests, that should give a good idea if there is any issue.
 
this may have been mentoned b4...but why does it work ok on shorter focal lengths but on longer ones its crap?
 
I ran some visual tests just using the 5x's and 10x's in a Lliliput to eyeball the difference. No stills to post though. At 200mm I saw no decay when I stacked a high quality circular and linear polarizer. My knock off "Nature" brand Fader ND sucked. I replaced the outer element with a Tiffen linear and that improved it but it wasn't as clean as the 2 good filters.

I bought a Tiffen 82mm lkinear to replace the outside element on my Fader ND but wish I could pull out the inside one as well. The rip off alrtists I bought it from ( advertized as a Lightcraft though don't know whetehr that would ahve been any better) won't answer calls or emails.

I suspect the Singh-ray will end up being the only one that's very good and then its just - how much do you want to pay? Seems worth it to me though.

How could the Lightcraft MKII be great quality for $125 when it costs over $200+ just to get decent glass. On the other why should the Singh-Ray be as high as $350?

Apparently Long lenses magnify the inperfections in the glass.
 
Okay, so here's my Vari-ND test. What you see (hopefully) below is a split-screen of the DSC Labs "Splash" Chart. On the left is the raw glass, no filter at all. On the right is the same shot with the Vari-ND in place, and set to "minimum ND" to best match the exposure (within reason). In Photoshop, I did a very simple levels adjustment, but nothing else.

Here's a resized JPG first…

singh_test_sm.jpg




And a link to a larger JPG…

http://proofcreative.com/f.e.d./singh_test.jpg

And a link to a full-res TIFF file…

http://proofcreative.com/f.e.d./singh_test.tif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top