RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

I asked this in a discussion at the end of a thread... but no answer to my question resulted. So I'll ask direct.

I am looking for real world experience between a variable ND filter ( of reputable make- like B+W-etc.) and a fixed ND filter ALSO of reputable make. I know what I read- but often I prefer to know the idiosyncrasies learned and described by people who have actually used something.

The variable ND filters, if I understand correctly, are really two polarized filters stacked, rotating them, One against the other, creates the "variable". I've heard about moiré patterns when variables are adjusted at the dense end...

Not having access to one in any local store closer then 80 miles, and thus being an expensive experiment to purchase and test, are they as good as a fixed ND filter(s).. As sharp in other words. ? Of course I understand a single variable represents a bag of fixed- that is an obvious advantage. But I'm looking for performance on detail- etc. Do you adjust them by feel? or do they have markings on them to tell you what strength they are?

Give me the skinny! LOL

Thanks in advance.

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

Anybody?

Take 5 Cinema Loc: Canoe BC

Sure - I'll tell ya from using both. I do movies now, but I have done thousands of stills and lived with polarizers. In movie making, we live in a world of filters - and my camera, a Sony FS100 is ultra sensitive. In sunlight, at the normal 1/60 sec shutter speed, I am forced to stop down to f16-22 (even at ISO100). Kinda lousy for shallow DoF, eh? At night, it can shoot a picture that I cannot even see! I can take a video with 2 candles nearby for lighting at 1/60 !! So we live in the world of ND's. Many movie cameras have built in ND's 2, 4 and 8 stops - mine does not and I seriously miss them.

I tried the Variable ND as a problem solver. It is above all, convenient and compact. I think I detect a slight degradation of image quality - just doesn't look right - can't place my finger on it - but then again it is an 'inexpensive' filter - not a $300 unit.

It does not have a polarizing effect which I highly value. I love to be able to control the reflections to what I want, not what these variable filters dictate to me. Variable ND's do not allow for that, in fact I think it does act as a polarizer and kills all reflections - so the picture ends up a bit dull, no sparkle and lousy highlights. High quality polarizers are prime requirements. That gives you 2+ stops right there and controls what you want to control.

ND's (many kinds - darkness, graduated, spot, colors, color compensating etc) are bulkier, heavier, but give a super clean image, hands down. It is even across the picture, no patterns, moire - nothing different except darker and a bit richer it seems, plus you get the sparkle and highlights too. A graduated ND has huge advantages in that you can make the sky or bright sections darker and thus even out the frame in dynamic range. That blown out sky is now a wonderful rich and glorious blue - which a polarizer can do as well, but also control reflections to your specs.

In my world, I am forced to use quality ND's - up to 16 stops less. I use an ND and a polarizer if needed. I no longer use the variable ND's. The picture just does not have that crispness, that edge, that 'je ne se quois' that makes it stand out.

The best approach, personally, in still photography, I would use a Tiffen, B+W, Schneider or Hoya polarizer any day of the week and put on an ND or graduated ND if needed to fine tune the picture or get that shallow DoF at f1.4 or 2.

Cheers,
Take 5

chapjohn Loc: Tigard, Oregon

I have both types of ND filters. I usually prefer the VND because it gives more options without screwing on and off ND's. It seems that if VND's were two CPL's then you get the effects of using polarizing filters, however, because ND's do not change the quality of light and only the amount of light, it does not make sense that VND's are two CPL's.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Fair enough...I've used both.



True...when you crank them to their "max" value or below it...then you get the unwanted X pattern. I don't like them for that reason.




The variable aren't (in a very general broad sort of way) as clear as the single ones...but that's a slight difference...you may be happy with a variable. I don't like putting ANYTHING there...

Yes...they have markings for the amount of stops of light they are reducing.

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

I appreciate your information greatly... I figured if I was going to go this route I'd have to stick with the best- which according to my research, seems is a heliopan, same people, according to one source that I haven't looked further into, who make Zeiss-using Schott glass. ( I think i have them spelled right) $350 - $500 is a bit steep, but if you buy that many fixed- it gets close in final costs.

I am primarily interested in landscapes with my D800e. I trust your input- and I think' I'll go with B+W fixed in .6,.9 and something denser to be determined...

I consider both your learned, real life input much more valuable then the reviews I have run across, one who called one a "Value Density" filter- LOL. Perhaps a Freudian slip. The glints and highlights being retained has sold me. It was my gut thought from the start- and is consistent with my gravitating to the performance of prime lenses. And frankly, makes sense.

Someday, when I have a pile of $$$ I'll get a Nikor 70-200 tele, but love my 25mm Distagon Zeiss. That will be m only zoom. (Gonna trade my 25mm in for the 21 Distagon in a few years- which they say is even better)

Thank you for your time! I truly appreciate it.

pigpen

I think B+W makes a great product. They are also high quality, German glass (Schneider I believe). I think their quality is almost that of Heliopan, at half the price. B+W is all I own (except my 4x6).