Matte Box + filters vs Singh-Ray filter

thanks for the reply Norman. I've got the hang of seperating the step up rings at the right size so I may stick with that method but just use the tiffen ND's you recommend instead of the VariND.

The termonology you mentioned (.3+.6+.9+1.2) is new to me as I'm used to ND2, 4, 8 etc. Could you explain how this translates?
 
sorry I think its as simple as .3 = ND2, .6 =ND4, .9 = ND6?! 1.2=ND8

or something like that...

If i were going to buy just one for a start off to check it doesnt keep the corpse effect like the Vari's do, which of the 4 would you say people use most in bright sunlight? I often find I need to go to crazily high shutter speeds to get exposure right without a filter (2000, 3000) so I guess .9 or 1.2?

I take it you can screw these filters onto one another then but unless you wanted to go above 1.2 why would you want to? I guess you could just buy .3, .6 and 1.2 and if you wanted .9 screw the .3 onto the .6 but I feel this whole ND thing isnt this simple?
 
tikigod19 said:
The termonology you mentioned (.3+.6+.9+1.2) is new to me as I'm used to ND2, 4, 8 etc. Could you explain how this translates?
Click to expand...

.3 = ND2 = 1 stop
.6 = ND4 = 2 stops
.9 = ND8 = 3 stops
1.2=ND16 = 4 stops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_density_filter#ND_filter_types

I have .3+.6+.9, and the most I have ever stacked was .3+.9=5 stops; that was a sunny day in southern Spain, but in winter; unless I get the 1.2 too, I expect I'll have to stack them all together sometimes
 
Last edited:
That's great thanks. I've just bought a 77mm 0.9 to play around with before I buy some more! Thanks again, sorry to hijack this thread
 
If I were to only buy 1, and my goal was to be able to shoot around f2.8 on a sunny day at 1/50 shutter, which would you recommend? 1.2?
 
if the answer to that comes back yes then I'll kick myself! Coupled with the fact that I have a couple of 1.4 and 1.8 primes I think maybe 0.9 won't be enough.
Having said that I don't mind 1/100 or 1/200 shutter, I quite like the look but 1/4000 is a touch high..
 
the intensity of daylight changes a lot from one place to another, from one day to another, from one season to another

go outside and take a picture with the aperture you intend to use; if you want to shoot with 1/50s shutter but you have to use 1/400s to get your exposure right, you need .9 (3 stops); if it is 1/800s, you need 1.2 (4 sops); if it is 1/1600s, you need .9+.6 or 1.2+.3 (5 stops), etc
 
Just to give people an idea about the results when using variable ND filters, here are some pics I shot this morning using my GH-2 with 3 lenses and the GENUS Fader filter.

- GH-2 in 14 Mpix Photo Mode ( images downscaled to 1080 HD size )
- Shot on a tripod using the 10 sec self-timer ( no vibration )
- Genus Fader 52mm, Genus Fader 58mm, Genus Fader 72mm
- Lumix 45-200mm Lens at 200mm f/5.6 ( I tried f/11.0 but the results were much worse )
- Zeiss 50mm Lens at f/2.8 ( f/4.0 used for the no filter shot as shutter was maxing out at 1/4000 sec )
- Zeiss 85mm Lens at f/2.8 ( f/4.0 used for the no filter shot as shutter was maxing out at 1/4000 sec )

Genus Fader Tests : View at FULL resolution

...I had never compared lenses with the Genus Fader before, but this test has convinced me that the type of lens has a huge effect on how well the fader ND filter performs.

The fast Zeiss lenses are still quite sharp with the ND Fader filter, but the Lumix 45-200mm just dies. I knew that the Lumix wasn't the sharpest lens at 200mm, but once you add the ND Fader the results are horrible.

The ND Fader color-shift I can live with, as this can always be corrected in post.

I am going to try repeating the test with my Lumix 14-45 just to see if it's usable with a ND Fader filter. ( it's a slow but sharp zoom lens )
 
I just repeated the same test using a Lumix 14-45mm lens at /f5.6, tested at both 14mm and 45mm, and the results were great. Almost no difference in sharpness with or without the ND Fader. This is good to know, as it means I can use the Genus Fader filters with all my lenses except the Lumix 45-200.

I also have a couple of more lenses to try out: a Voightlander Nokton 25mm f/0.95 currently stuck in transit with Canada Post, and a $47 eBay Canon FD 70-210 f/4.0 zoom that is waiting for an FD ---> m4/3 adapter that is coming from Poland. If the Canon FD 70-210 turns out to be a good lens with the ND Fader, I might ditch the Lumix 45-200mm completely, and stick with the Canon.
 
TheDingo said:
I just repeated the same test using a Lumix 14-45mm lens at /f5.6, tested at both 14mm and 45mm, and the results were great. Almost no difference in sharpness with or without the ND Fader. This is good to know, as it means I can use the Genus Fader filters with all my lenses except the Lumix 45-200.

I also have a couple of more lenses to try out: a Voightlander Nokton 25mm f/0.95 currently stuck in transit with Canada Post, and a $47 eBay Canon FD 70-210 f/4.0 zoom that is waiting for an FD ---> m4/3 adapter that is coming from Poland. If the Canon FD 70-210 turns out to be a good lens with the ND Fader, I might ditch the Lumix 45-200mm completely, and stick with the Canon.
Click to expand...

It is not the fault of your lens. It is just that these ND Faders completely mess up at focal lengths longer than 100-135mm. This has already been reported several times.
 
TheDingo said:
What`s the technical reason for this ?
Click to expand...

I assume it is the quality of the glass the filter is made of. Several (non-scientific) tests have been reported in this forum illustrating this issue that apparently hasn't been corrected in the markII version (see posts by NormanBates and his site http://www.similaar.com). The much more expensive Singh ray as well as quality non variable NDs don't exhibit this problem.
 
I'm not so sure about more expensive variable NDs... I think it's an unavoidable issue

a variable ND filter is two polarizers on in front of the other; at 0º they let about 1/2 the light go through, at 90º they let nearly no light go through

not sure about the physics, but I think "two slightly angled polarizers in front of a long lens" create big IQ issues, that's it; maybe you can make the problem slightly smaller by using better filters, but my guess is that it's always going to be pretty bad; still, I haven't had a singh ray in my hands, so I may be wrong
 
Last edited:
I was wondering if it was an infrared issue... Do the two polarizers have the same ND effect on the infrared spectrum as they do on the visible spectrum?
 
does anyone know if I were to buy step rings for each of my lenses to put the singh ray or similar on, could I then buy a screw on lens hood to go over the filter? if so, would I then be unable to adjust the singh ray?

had a nightmare changing lenses and step rings lately, want to try to streamline the process and for example get a 54mm - 77mm step ring and then a hood to put on after attaching the vari ND
 
I have a step up ring on each of my lenses, converting them all to 67mm; it's glued, so it doesn't come off when I swap filters (it may sound silly, but if you're using screw-in filters, it's always the wrong screw that comes off first)

I then put my filters, then a 67mm rubber hood (the one from fotodiox is much better than other ones I've tried)

I haven't used a sighn ray vari ND, but this setup works for both my old LCW fader ND and my Hoya circular polarizer
 
HansSteinert said:
I've got a Canon 60D. I need ND filters, and I know they aren't cheap. I was going to grab the Singh-Ray 77mm thin mount ND filter + stop up adapters for all my lenses. It would run about $430 total. However, something just came to mind. If I can find a matte box + matte box filters for only a hundred or 2 more, perhaps I should just go with that, as the investment would stay applicable even if I upgrade my gear.

So, my question is: how much does a decent Matte Box + filters cost? I don't need the absolute top of the line, but I also don't want junk. How much are we talking, and do you guys have any recommendations? Finally, would you go with the ND filters that screw on your lenses like the Singh-Ray, or a Matte Box kit?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Hans -- here is a matte box solution that will still work if you upgrade your gear, and costs less than the Singh-Ray. Total cost is less than $300. Haven't bought it yet, but it is next on my list:

Cinetactics Matteblox soft matte box: $99 plus shipping.

Cinetactics 4X4 filter holders: 2 for $16.50 plus shipping.

Cavision 4X4 glass 0.3 ND filter: $59.95.

Cavision 4X4 glass 0.6 ND filter: $59.95.

Cavision 4X4 glass 0.9 ND filter: $57.50.

Hope this is helpful.

Cheers,

Bill
 
NormanBates said:
I have a step up ring on each of my lenses, converting them all to 67mm; it's glued, so it doesn't come off when I swap filters (it may sound silly, but if you're using screw-in filters, it's always the wrong screw that comes off first)

I then put my filters, then a 67mm rubber hood (the one from fotodiox is much better than other ones I've tried)

I haven't used a sighn ray vari ND, but this setup works for both my old LCW fader ND and my Hoya circular polarizer
Click to expand...

just the info I needed Norman. Could you link me to the hood you mentioned? So to confirm you attach (in your case glue) the for example 54mm - 67mm adapter to the 54mm lens thread and then put the filter on, and the hood over the top and you can still easily access the rotating ring on the LCW? Is it easy to get the hood on and off as I assume this is the only thing you'd need to keep doing when changing filter

also for a 77mm LCW filter would I need a hood thats larger than 77mm? I'm not sure if the inner thread and outer thread are the same size and I dont have it to hand to look at.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top