ND Filter

[CMoore]

Is there an advantage to using several, single stop ND Filters compared to using one Variable ND Filter.?
If you can buy a variable that will do 1 to 3 stops, are there reasons to buy a 1, a 2 and a 3 stop ND Filter instead of just the one variable ND Filter.?
Thank You

 

[Paul Howell]

May be other reasons, but when using a wide angle lens stacked filters are likely to cause shadows in the corners, and no need to carry additional filters and cases.

 

[Pieter12]

More glass in front of the lens=more opportunity for dust & distortion.

 

[AgX]

Yes, all right.
BUT the static ND filters will be more neutral than the variable one, and also more homogeneous over the angle of incidence.

 

[CMoore]

May be other reasons, but when using a wide angle lens stacked filters are likely to cause shadows in the corners, and no need to carry additional filters and cases.

Yes, all right.
BUT the static ND filters will be more neutral than the variable one, and also more homogeneous over the angle of incidence.

Yeah.
I had not even considered stacking.
I was only thinking of the static ND Values.
Static 1 Stop Vs Variable 1 Stop
Static 2 Stop Vs Variable 2 Stop
Etc etc etc

I never considered stacking to achieve a big loss of light.
I think MY main use for ND would be the taming of HP5 in bright sunlight, for "Basic Street Photography"

 

[MattKing]

Each air to glass interface adds another potential source of dust and flare. So as a general rule of thumb it is a good idea to minimize the number of filters.

 

[CMoore]

Each air to glass interface adds another potential source of dust and flare. So as a general rule of thumb it is a good idea to minimize the number of filters.

Yes, i realized my narrow need for an ND Filter as i started to read these responses.
Most of what i do with a camera is just "Street Photography".
Even on a sunny day, it can be a "Challenge" to shoot FP4 in the darker parts of a Big(ish) City.

Probably makes sense for me to just buy a 2 or 3 Stop 55mm.....start with that.

 

[RDW]

I think MY main use for ND would be the taming of HP5 in bright sunlight, for "Basic Street Photography"

What shutter speed range to you have? For the price of a decent set of ND filters (or less), you could pick up an SLR body that goes up to 1/8000. Most second tier SLR bodies from the AF era do this (or a Nikon FE2/FM2 goes up to 1/4000). At ISO 400, you can open up to f/4 at 1/8000 even in 'sunny 16' conditions, and with the exposure latitude of HP5 you can go even wider (treat it as ISO 200, as some people do anyway, and that's f/2.8).

 

[narsuitus]

If you can buy a variable that will do 1 to 3 stops, are there reasons to buy a 1, a 2 and a 3 stop ND Filter instead of just the one variable ND Filter.?

I own one 77mm variable neutral density filter that provides 1 to 10 stops of darkness.

With step-up adapter rings, I can use this filter on my 52, 58, 62, 67, and 72mm threaded lenses.

However, instead of using adapters to mount this large 77mm filter on my small lenses, I prefer to use smaller 1, 2, or 3-stop 39mm and 49mm neutral density filters.

 

[CMoore]

What shutter speed range to you have? For the price of a decent set of ND filters (or less), you could pick up an SLR body that goes up to 1/8000. Most second tier SLR bodies from the AF era do this (or a Nikon FE2/FM2 goes up to 1/4000). At ISO 400, you can open up to f/4 at 1/8000 even in 'sunny 16' conditions, and with the exposure latitude of HP5 you can go even wider (treat it as ISO 200, as some people do anyway, and that's f/2.8).

I am not sure, i rarely go that high.
Canon F-1 New or Nikon F2............maybe 2000.?

 

[gone]

A camera that had a higher shutter speed would get you the same effect, and wouldn't entail putting more glass in the light path. Having dealt w/ glass negative carriers before, I also subscribe to the idea that more glass leads to dust and (probably) flare issues, along w/ a potential loss of IQ.

Many of the Nikon cameras go to 1/8000, and if I shoot Tri-X at 250 w/ a Y. fltr, my N8008s allows shooting at wide apertures on sunny days.

 

[RDW]

I am not sure, i rarely go that high.
Canon F-1 New or Nikon F2............maybe 2000.?

I think it's 1/2000 on both of those. That puts you at f/8 shooting HP5 at box speed (or f/5.6 treating it as ISO 200) in 'sunny 16' light, which is about as bright as you'll have to deal with on the street. So you'll only need an ND if you want to blur motion or restrict depth of field. You can also do the latter with a camera that has a faster shutter speed.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Is there an advantage to using several, single stop ND Filters compared to using one Variable ND Filter.?
If you can buy a variable that will do 1 to 3 stops, are there reasons to buy a 1, a 2 and a 3 stop ND Filter instead of just the one variable ND Filter.?
Thank You

I agree that I would rather have a variable 1 to 3 ND filter than carry a 1, 2, and 3 ND filters ASSUMING all the filters are of the same quality.

 

[Pieter12]

I agree that I would rather have a variable 1 to 3 ND filter than carry a 1, 2, and 3 ND filters ASSUMING all the filters are of the same quality.

Every time you change filters, you might be missing a shot. It can be a hassle to remove the filter, slip it in some sort of sleeve or case or pocket, screw in the new one. All the while adding dust and possible fingerprints to the filters and the lens. If you really need an ND filter for street photography (and I have shot wait a bit of that genre) go for the variable one. But as others have pointed out, most situations don't call for that kind of drastic measure unless you're looking for a special look, like panning with motion blur.

1/8 sec f:5.6 ISO 800

 

[Petrochemist]

Variable NDs can cause issues with uneven polarization tending to produce a dark X with wide angle lenses. Stacked NDs will not suffer from this but can have issues of their own.
FWIW I've never seen sets as 1, 2, & 3 stops, Sellers realise that 1, 2, & 4 stops (or 1, 2, 4, & 8 stop) are much more useful selection allowing any integer from 1 to 7 (or 1 to 15) to be created.

My variable ND filters actually have less of a colour cast than some of the sets of cheap ND filters I've owned.

 

[wiltw]

Each air to glass interface adds another potential source of dust and flare. So as a general rule of thumb it is a good idea to minimize the number of filters.

^^^
If each filter is 97% efficient at transmitting light (with other 3% reflecting between filters)...

• 2-filter stack transmits only 94% of light (the rest causing flare)...like a cheap double-coated filter
• 3-filter stack transmits only 91% of light,(the rest causing more flare)...like a really cheap single-coated filter

[

 

[Petrochemist]

^^^
If each filter is 97% efficient at transmitting light (with other 3% reflecting between filters)...

• 2-filter stack transmits only 94% of light (the rest causing flare)...like a cheap double-coated filter
• 3-filter stack transmits only 91% of light,(the rest causing more flare)...like a really cheap single-coated filter

[

That 3% is per air/glass transition (ie both the in & out sides of the glass) & applies to uncoated surfaces, singly coated surfaces only loose about 0.5% per transition to reflection. Still enough to become significant with many of todays lenses (which often have 20 transitions)
The cheaper ND filters are likely to be uncoated, but perhaps few experienced photographers will get the set of 4 being sold for under £20
ND filters will of course absorb a significant portion of the light as well (It's what we fit them to do) a single stop filter absorbing ~50% of the light. 2 filters from the same set would be a minimum of 3 stops so would absorb ~87% of the light

 

[wiltw]

That 3% is per air/glass transition (ie both the in & out sides of the glass) & applies to uncoated surfaces, singly coated surfaces only loose about 0.5% per transition to reflection. Still enough to become significant with many of todays lenses (which often have 20 transitions)
The cheaper ND filters are likely to be uncoated, but perhaps few experienced photographers will get the set of 4 being sold for under £20
ND filters will of course absorb a significant portion of the light as well (It's what we fit them to do) a single stop filter absorbing ~50% of the light. 2 filters from the same set would be a minimum of 3 stops so would absorb ~87% of the light

the filter manufactureres rate

• their best line at 99.7% or more
• the second lines are rated 97%
• the double coated lines are rated 94%

...merely using THEIR specs!

 

[Petrochemist]

the filter manufactureres rate

• their best line at 99.7% or more
• the second lines are rated 97%
• the double coated lines are rated 94%

...merely using THEIR specs!

Their coating process is obviously much inferior to that used by lens manufacturers then! Anti reflection coatings need very precise layers 50nm off goes from reducing reflections to boosting them.

 

[narsuitus]

FWIW I've never seen sets as 1, 2, & 3 stops, Sellers realise that 1, 2, & 4 stops (or 1, 2, 4, & 8 stop) are much more useful selection allowing any integer from 1 to 7 (or 1 to 15) to be created.

Since I prefer not to stack my filters, I had to create my own kit consisting of the following three neutral density filters:
1-stop (ND2)
2-stop (ND4)
3-stop (ND8)

When I need 4-stops and above, I used a 10-stop variable neutral density filter.

 

[wiltw]

Their coating process is obviously much inferior to that used by lens manufacturers then! Anti reflection coatings need very precise layers 50nm off goes from reducing reflections to boosting them.

I am not defending any company, nor criticizing, I am stating what the filter manufacturers state. Here is a graph provided by B+W for their filters.

 

[Petrochemist]

I am not defending any company, nor criticizing, I am stating what the filter manufacturers state. Here is a graph provided by B+W for their filters.

I see they are quoting for both faces coated, that & different points on the curves being quoted probably accounts for the variation.

 

[BrianShaw]

Is the “uncoated” really that flat of a curve, or is that notional?

 

[Petrochemist]

Is the “uncoated” really that flat of a curve, or is that notional?

It probably is that flat. Coatings use destructive interference to reduce reflections which is a wavelength sensitive effect.
You'll note the singly coated trace comes to much more of a ponit than the multicoated, this is due to the thicknesses of separate coatings being optimised for different visual wavelengths. Outside of the area where they are designed to work the coatings can reduce transmission drastically. This can be seen at the UV end in the traces above, but in some cases also shows in the Near infra red.

 

[BrianShaw]

Thanks!!