shaocaholica
Well-known member
Thats pretty good for 200mm. I could hardly see the difference and I doubt I'd see it at all at 1080p. Do you have anything longer than 200 to try?
Fader ND Mk.II is still kinda "meh" for telephoto
- Thread starter shaocaholica
- Start date
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
I could slap my 2x Extender on, but I doubt there'd be that much difference if any, especially if we're talking about video mode. If I can get some more work done, perhaps I'll pull out the 2x and do another test.
shaocaholica
Well-known member
Even at longer focal lengths >200mm?
jghenderson
Well-known member
Forgive my ignorance, but why is this exactly? I really like the run-and-gun documentary style but have zero knowledge of the use of ND filters. I would really appreciate some info.
Hey StephenMick.
What F-Stop did you shoot it at? I noticed on the Fader mark 2 and the original Fader, that there is very little softness at higher f stops. I did one test at f7 and there was very little res. loss.
But at f2, the softness was more noticeable.
I'll post my test when I get a chance. Too much work.
This weekend I will try it with my 70-200. The first tests I did with an 85mm Canon 1.8
What F-Stop did you shoot it at? I noticed on the Fader mark 2 and the original Fader, that there is very little softness at higher f stops. I did one test at f7 and there was very little res. loss.
But at f2, the softness was more noticeable.
I'll post my test when I get a chance. Too much work.
This weekend I will try it with my 70-200. The first tests I did with an 85mm Canon 1.8
There are few things that are Plus for the LCW fader. I like that the front element is a size up. Even on my Tokina 11-16 (at 11mm) with the Fader stacked on top of a Hoya UV, there is very, very little vignetting.
Without the Hoya UV, there would be no Vignette at all.
I made my own DIY Fader with 2 polarizers and it worked good, but vignetted big-time.
The Sighn-Ray does not seem to have the bigger front element (so I'm assuming more vignette issues), but it does seem to have the upper hand in image quality for sure. But damn... it's serious bucks.
Without the Hoya UV, there would be no Vignette at all.
I made my own DIY Fader with 2 polarizers and it worked good, but vignetted big-time.
The Sighn-Ray does not seem to have the bigger front element (so I'm assuming more vignette issues), but it does seem to have the upper hand in image quality for sure. But damn... it's serious bucks.
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
The "raw glass" shot was at f4. The Vari-ND shot was at f2.8, if I remember correctly.
shaocaholica
Well-known member
I'll try my Fader ND Mk.II tonight at 200mm and see how it stacks up. Still, I use 400mm a lot and I wish there were something better for that focal range.
Perfect test image, Stephen Mick. Thank you so much for doing that. Your Vari-ND is miles ahead of my Fader ND Mk 1. Very, very little sharpness loss, which may even be attributed to the second shot being taken at f2.8. The color was also only subtly affected. Nice. I wonder how much of a color shift the "warming polarizer" in the Vari-N-Duo creates.
Is your Vari-ND a standard or thin mount? How wide can you shoot before any vignetting?
Is your Vari-ND a standard or thin mount? How wide can you shoot before any vignetting?
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
Glad to do it.
My Vari-NDs are all standard-mount. On my Tokina 11-16mm lens, there is vignetting on the wide end, but I rarely use the Vari-ND on that lens. Instead, I've got three B&W ND filters that go on that glass, with no vignetting.
On the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 lens, there is no vignetting at all with the Vari-ND on video as far as I can tell.
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
Buy once. Cry once. 
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
Stephen,
Thanks for the test and it as i suspected, however I do have an important tech question about your test.
Were you outside in sunlight, thus requiring the Vari ND be turned to max or close to max?
I ask because in my eyeball tests, as I recall, it seemed to make a significant difference - and the degradation was not as severe when the filter was rolled in for less ND effect. That's my memory though and I wasn't mainly testing for that issue so I might be wrong.
If you didn't shoot in real sunlight then it may not be an accurate test.
Lenny Levy
Thanks for the test and it as i suspected, however I do have an important tech question about your test.
Were you outside in sunlight, thus requiring the Vari ND be turned to max or close to max?
I ask because in my eyeball tests, as I recall, it seemed to make a significant difference - and the degradation was not as severe when the filter was rolled in for less ND effect. That's my memory though and I wasn't mainly testing for that issue so I might be wrong.
If you didn't shoot in real sunlight then it may not be an accurate test.
Lenny Levy
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
As I said above, with storm watches and flood warnings in the area, there wasn't much chance of shooting outside today. So the above shots were taken inside, with aperture adjusted as much as possible to at least see if there was any significant drop in sharpness with the filter on.
There may be a drop in sharpness as the ND is further "engaged," but that wasn't something I could test today. Perhaps tomorrow the weather will cooperate. If so, I'll do my best to get out and do another test.
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
Your a saint Stephen , thanks for doing our homework.
shaocaholica
Well-known member
Does anyone know if there are any tests online which show the Vari-ND vs the FaderND at longer focal lengths? I've found a few comparisons but nothing that tests telephoto.
You're looking at it. Page 1 for the Fader ND Mk II, Page 2 for the Vari-ND.