Jump to content

ND filter 10x choices


John Di Leo

Recommended Posts

I'd like to try some long exposure photography, so I am in the market for a 10x ND filter 77mm for my d810

 

The prices range from ~~$30 to $250 ish. The only criticism I see is reddish tint and possibility of flare on the lower priced filters. Is that it? Are those the major issues? I do not see anything about IQ, or maybe I missed it?

I do not mind color correcting in post, and some have said the "warming effect" can be pleasing, and I will likely NOT be shooting into a light source.

Should I go for the cheapo Hoya, Vivitar, or step up to the <$100 B+W? The $250 one is hard to justify, but I seek the collective wisdom of photo.net, and TIA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just can't see putting a cheap filter in front of a fine lens - that said, I'd shop Roberts, KEH, B&W used for a quality filter. Since you are experimenting, decent /cheap might work for a trial, moving up if you like the outcome. The max I have used is Nikon ND 8 - does not appear to impact color.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10x isn't enough to get really long exposures, for misty seascapes or streaked clouds for example. Maybe you mean minus 10 stops?

 

If you want 30 second+ exposure times in average daylight, then you need an ND 3.0 (1000x) or thereabouts.

 

Co-incidentally, I recently bought a Heliopan ND 3.0 for use with my Sony a6000, and I definitely don't recommend it.

 

It's so thick that it produces a lot of falloff - vignetting - at the edges of the frame, and it's far from neutral.

For an expensive brand it's an awful product!

 

I've previously used a cheap no-brand 10 stop ND. It's much more neutral and gives far less vignetting than the Heliopan.

Unfortunately that cheap filter is 72 mm, which would look ridiculous on the diminutive a6000.

 

Neither the cheapo filter nor the Heliopan were coated, so flare performance is probably very similar.

 

Incidentally, a tint on an ND filter isn't a problem if you're using digital, and falloff can be corrected in post as well, but it's a pain to have to do that.

 

And Hoya are not a cheapo brand. They produce some of the best performing filters you can buy. I'd take a Hoya over the rubbishy Heliopan anyday!

Edited by rodeo_joe|1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heliopan prides themselves for using solid glass filters, no gel (except for polarizers). They probably blend carbon with the glass for neutral density, or possibly nano metal particles. That said, B+W ND filters are no thicker than usual. Hoya have a wide range of quality. The best ones cost the same as B+W or Heliopan, but only the latter use brass rings, which are smoother to attach and less likely to jam than aluminum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I mean minus 10 stops.

By cheapo I meant price only, not brand. My budget is about $100 for this. I looked at KEH, Adorama, BHPhoto, Roberts. I looked unsuccessfully for used.

So I am seeing

Hoya SOLAS IRND 3.0 77mm Infrared Neutral Density Filter @120 lowest "reviews"

Promaster IRND1000X (3.0) HGX Prime Lens Filters @110

B+W ND 3.0 10 Stops (SC)@ 70 (w/o infrared filtration it appears but without vignetting at 24mm

Heliopan 77mm Solid Neutral Density 3.0 Filter (10 Stop) @ 160 highest reviews

and there are some others

 

It appears that there are 3 price points, the $30 range, the 100+ and the $300. If it sounds like I am a bit confused trying to compare apples and oranges, I am. Or maybe I am not confused and you get what you pay for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can say is that I've examined the Heliopan filter closely, and it is massively thick (the glass that is). Much thicker than any other ND filter I've used, which makes its vignetting stronger.

 

I don't care if Heliopan use micro-fine ground moon rock in the filter. It ain't neutral, and that's that!

 

The best ND filter I've ever come across was made by none of the well-known filter companies. It's a Bolex branded 16mm cine filter. The ND element is a surface coating of reflective material (chromium maybe?) and due to the extreme thinness of the coating it shows no vignetting to oblique rays whatsoever. It's also totally neutral.

 

Now why can't the big filter companies produce something like that in a larger diameter? That might be worth 300 bucks. But for a bit of tinted glass - no way!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
It seems that people are referring to filters that screw in /on to the lens. I see no mention of the likes of Lee or Cokin (European) square/rectangular filters with separate filter holder with adapters for the various lens sizes. Filters can be both resin or glass, with the glass usually being the better quality. I picked up a Cokin Nuances 10 stop ND filter for £50 or about $65. Haven't tried it out yet, but will do when I am on holiday in a few days. These systems can prove cheaper in the long run if you are going to be using more than one lens. The Cokin filter system comes in 'P', 'Z-pro' and 'X-pro' sizes depending on the size of the lens.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With such a dense filter, it is extremely important to avoid light leaks between the filter and lens. Screw-in filters are best, but the most expensive option if you need different sizes for several lenses. Step-up adapters will let you use a large screw-in filter on smaller lenses, but generally preclude use of a lens hood. Rectangular filter holders do a poor job of this because easy access to the filters results in poor light sealing. A video-type matte box is better, since the filter holders fit closely. You have devices for sealing the lens to the adapter (affectionately known as "Nun's Nickers"), and the advantage of using one set of filters for all lenses.

 

A 3"x 3" matte box is sufficient for most DSLR/MILC lenses, but 4"x 4" or larger is needed for video lenses with a 95-105mm filter ring. Even a small matte box is much larger than a conventional hood or Cokin-type adapter. They are also fairly shallow, but come with "French Flags" for shielding the filter from stray light - also important for good contrast with long exposures. You'll be using a tripod anyway, so size and weight is of little importance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best filters I have accumulated (mostly in buying old lenses and cameras) are pretty clearly the B+W, if only in the quality of manufacturing; but when I have to buy (spend money on) filters, especially for projects that will not be long-term, I have found the better grade of Hoya to be more than adequate optically.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, I have a thin B&W 6 stop and a Marumi variable ND 10 stop both in 77mm and carry step up rings. I think that solid/single density filters are a better choice and are more even. The Marumi filter that is essentially a double polarizer was not cheap but even still my favorite filter manufacturer Singh-Ray makes a variable filter that cost twice as much. The single density filters come in a thinner mount though some of the variable filters are relatively thin. Brass rings are on all the B&W filters and even though I like brass better there are very few problems (no galling) with aluminum on plastic lenses. The single density filters can be pointed at the sky and evenly darken the image where as I have found uneven lighting with the variable filter that I understand is a problem with all variable filters. Many lenses these days have a 82mm or larger filter threads including my beloved Zeiss 15mm Distagon that is 95mm so $250 out the door for either a Nikon 95mm polarizer or a B&W 95mm ND. I think that many good filters have a slight color cast that can be controlled in post though you would expect better given the high cost. I use a Cokin P filter holder that will accommodate 82mm for my Singh-Ray and Hitech grads but have never tried a solid filter. It may be an affordable way to go. I don’t use the Fotodiox Wonderpana system but it will allow you to use a really fat lens like my Zeiss 15mm or the Nikon 14-24mm with large grad and ND filters. My primary use of ND is for waterfall photography but I can also use them to shoot in broad daylight with the aperture wide open to better control the background with a flash that will only sync to 250th. With waterfalls I tend to look for rivers and stream beds that give me a position that will allow me to control highlights. Good hunting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At 10 stops ND and a digital camera, I would look for a filter that also filters IR to avoid IR contamination of the image as digital sensors will be fogged by IR with a filter that only stops visible light. I would buy a good one that has minimal color shifting as many of these heavy IRND filters shift colors quite a bit.

 

I have used a 6 stop version from this company and was very impressed with the results:

ND Buying Guide

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
With such a dense filter, it is extremely important to avoid light leaks between the filter and lens. Screw-in filters are best, but the most expensive option if you need different sizes for several lenses. Step-up adapters will let you use a large screw-in filter on smaller lenses, but generally preclude use of a lens hood. Rectangular filter holders do a poor job of this because easy access to the filters results in poor light sealing. A video-type matte box is better, since the filter holders fit closely. You have devices for sealing the lens to the adapter (affectionately known as "Nun's Nickers"), and the advantage of using one set of filters for all lenses.

 

A 3"x 3" matte box is sufficient for most DSLR/MILC lenses, but 4"x 4" or larger is needed for video lenses with a 95-105mm filter ring. Even a small matte box is much larger than a conventional hood or Cokin-type adapter. They are also fairly shallow, but come with "French Flags" for shielding the filter from stray light - also important for good contrast with long exposures. You'll be using a tripod anyway, so size and weight is of little importance.

I have all 77mm B+W filters w/ step-up rings from 40.5mm to 77 (of course) & 77 to 52mm step-downs. I use the step-downs over the filter to allow the use of a lens shade. For wide angle lenses I use a larger diameter step-down than the taking lens minimum step-down to avoid vignetting. A step-down by it's self will help if I don't have a shade of the needed diameter. The step-up/downs are all Aluminum. I rub a little facial oil on the threads prior to installing. It truly makes the threading smoother. It's an old film printers trick to minimize scratches on negatives. I also carry filter wrenches. Somehow the “ larger diameter step-down than the taking lens minimum strep-down to avoid vignetting” sentence doesn't make sense, but it's too late for me to decipher. I think you'll figure out what I'm trying to say. The concept is valid, the words just aren't.

With such a dense filter, it is extremely important to avoid light leaks between the filter and lens. Screw-in filters are best, but the most expensive option if you need different sizes for several lenses. Step-up adapters will let you use a large screw-in filter on smaller lenses, but generally preclude use of a lens hood. Rectangular filter holders do a poor job of this because easy access to the filters results in poor light sealing. A video-type matte box is better, since the filter holders fit closely. You have devices for sealing the lens to the adapter (affectionately known as "Nun's Nickers"), and the advantage of using one set of filters for all lenses.

 

A 3"x 3" matte box is sufficient for most DSLR/MILC lenses, but 4"x 4" or larger is needed for video lenses with a 95-105mm filter ring. Even a small matte box is much larger than a conventional hood or Cokin-type adapter. They are also fairly shallow, but come with "French Flags" for shielding the filter from stray light - also important for good contrast with long exposures. You'll be using a tripod anyway, so size and weight is of little importance.

With such a dense filter, it is extremely important to avoid light leaks between the filter and lens. Screw-in filters are best, but the most expensive option if you need different sizes for several lenses. Step-up adapters will let you use a large screw-in filter on smaller lenses, but generally preclude use of a lens hood. Rectangular filter holders do a poor job of this because easy access to the filters results in poor light sealing. A video-type matte box is better, since the filter holders fit closely. You have devices for sealing the lens to the adapter (affectionately known as "Nun's Nickers"), and the advantage of using one set of filters for all lenses.

 

A 3"x 3" matte box is sufficient for most DSLR/MILC lenses, but 4"x 4" or larger is needed for video lenses with a 95-105mm filter ring. Even a small matte box is much larger than a conventional hood or Cokin-type adapter. They are also fairly shallow, but come with "French Flags" for shielding the filter from stray light - also important for good contrast with long exposures. You'll be using a tripod anyway, so size and weight is of little importance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...