Last night, I decided to try using neutral density filters on sunny days when using fill flash.

The idea is that by using an ND filter I would be able to open up aperture and take pictures with shallower DOF without having to use high speed sync (and waste flash power).

I did some reading to confirm my thoughts , and decided that I really need to get myself a 3-stop filter. No need for variable density. 3 stops would be just what I need according to my metering of a typical situation in which I would be using it. I decided to settle on a filter from B+W.

Unfortunately, we are traveling around in Italy right now. Well, that's not the unfortunate part. The unfortunate part happens to be the fact that I got the urge to buy an ND filter at a time when we were staying in a small town with only one (smallish) photography/video store.

They only had two filters in stock. One was a 6-stop B+W, and the other one was a 2-stop Marumi.

6 stops is way too much for me. So I decided to get the one made by Marumi.
Although I never heard about that brand before, the "Made in Japan" sign (along with the fact that there wasn't any alternative at the moment) encouraged me to get it.

Here is the result of a little test. Both shots were taken with a Canon 17-55 (with a hood) on a 7D on a tripod with a remote shutter. Bright daylight with a fill flash (CTO gel).

The shots are a bit overexposed. No post processing. Straight-from-camera JPG.

Sadly, I only got a chance to look at the pics on a larger screen later in the day. We are in another town now. Too far away to drive back just to return the filter.

The first shot was taken without a filter. The second one is with Marumi ND4X.

I guess that's what happens when you stick a $60-piece of glass in front of an $1100-piece of glass.

It was f/5.6 without a filter and f/2.8 with the filter. Same shutter speed.
I thought about it too. But 17-55 is a decent lens. While all lenses are softer at wider apertures, I don't think blue CA would be the result of a fault of the lens. Green/orange maybe, but not blue.

I'm going to run some more tests for f/2.8 vs. f/.5.6 with and without this filter.
But as far as I remember from past shots, 17-55 was always great for me even wide open.


On contrary, I'm sure it is. This filter has coating on the outside, but not on the inside. It's most likely light bouncing off of some lens element onto the filter and from the filter back through the lens onto the sensor.


Nope. I stopped using UV filters some time ago.


Yes. Ideally, I want to be able to use ISO 100, f/2.8, 1/250 on a sunny day.
What I get instead is blue cast on all overexposed/bright surfaces.

Well at least we aren't BS'ing about post processing! To paraphrase the Bard, William, Methinks he protests too loudly! Last thing I'd be doing, touring Italy and looking at all the "Naked Davids" is bitch about similar looking pictures! WE Texans have a saying--he'd complain, even, if they wree hanging him with a new rope

You need to read your posts before hitting "send". :lol: I got the point though. The problem is the ropes aren't being used. Oh crap! I've started more trouble! :roll: :thumbup: