Initial review of the Singh-Ray Vari-n-Duo

I received my Singh-Ray Vari-n-Duo yesterday and thought that I'd throw up a review since I couldn't find one here.

Ordering: Easy as could be. Singh-Ray's site takes all major credit cards and paypal.

Price: $402.95 shipped. If you live in Florida, you will pay sales tax

Shipping: Fedex Ground and I received it in 5 days after ordering

Includes: Filter in leather pouch. No hard case

Initial thoughts: This thing is big. It almost adds an inch to the front of your lens. I thought that configuring the ND filter and CPL would be a pain, but it's really not. I only had about 10 minutes to shoot with it yesterday, so I took out my pod, plus 70-200 and found a small little waterfall. No mirror lock up, no remote release, no post processing, just wanted to see how well it would work

Well, it works. On the filter, you have in white writing MIN and MAX, and in between, dots and lines that show the difference between the 2 2/3 stop ND all the way to the 8 stop ND. Very easy to configure. Once you have your ND set, you turn the whole front to configure the CPL. Works like a charm, and turning the ring does not change your ND settings.

1 warning, when you set the ND to 6-8 stops, the viewfinder gets dark. REALLY dark. At 8 stop, it looks like you have your lens cap on when looking through the viewfinder. So make sure to focus before going 6 to 8 stop.

Here is a quick shot. Far from the best shot, but shows what the filter can do. At ISO 100, f/16, I put it to 4 stop ND and configured the CPL to get this 2 second exposure. The integrated CPL definitely helps as there was a bunch of reflection coming off of the rocks, and the CPL helped kill the stray light.

I was looking at these filters and astounded at their price!

I wanted something to use when shooting portraits so that could shoot wide open (flash involved) and found the inclusive CPL a cool feature since I find it makes the colours really pop.

I was a bit concerned that the filter has a warming feature and I wanted to know how noticeable it was as that might be fine for a landscape but could be unwanted otherwise.

It puts a slight warming tint to the image, but nothing drastic. As you mentioned, it is really useful for landscape. For portraiture, it will throw off the skin tones, but could easily be fixed in post. If you'd never use the filter for landscapes, and mainly for portraiture, then I'd probably recommend the Vari-ND instead of the duo.

Also, to the price, it is expensive without a doubt. That being said, my regular Singh-Ray 2 and 3 stop Graduated NDs are around $100 a piece. Add to that the B+W Kaeseman CPL that I used, that's another $150. Here, I have the convenience of going from 2 2/3 to 8 stop ND and have a CPL on top of that, all in one little convenient screw on filter. Singh-Ray in general is expensive, but for me, this is worth the price.

trailblazer wrote in post #7568211
I was looking at these filters and astounded at their price!

I wanted something to use when shooting portraits so that could shoot wide open (flash involved) and found the inclusive CPL a cool feature since I find it makes the colours really pop.

I was a bit concerned that the filter has a warming feature and I wanted to know how noticeable it was as that might be fine for a landscape but could be unwanted otherwise.

If you want to neutralize the warming, use Kelvin WB and set the temperature a few hundred Kelvins cooler (higher). So instead of 5500, you'd use between 5700 and 6000 (to taste).

Do you find much difference between the warming polarizer and the effects from your B+W Kaesemann, or are they rather subtle? I have the B+W Kaesemann as well...

I received the Vari-N-Duo about a week ago, along with a Gold'n'Blue polariser - from testing so far, it looks to be an extremely useful landscape filter (practically a dedicated waterfall/running water filter), especially on a telephoto lens; due to its thickness, however, it will vignette on a 24-105mm f/4L (a travel/trekking mainstay) until around 40-45mm. It won't fit on a 16-35mm F/2.8L II due to the 82mm filter size, but that is likely of little concern due to the heavy vignetting an 82mm version would likely cause on that lens anyway.

Has anyone tested it for vignetting on the 24-70mm f/2.8L? Are there any wide-angle wide or prime lenses where it won't vignette?

Difference is there, but it's subtle. I personally prefer the effect of the warming polarizer better.

Here are two shots I just took with the 24-70.

24mm - Vignetting is pretty bad

Shadowblade wrote in post #7572965
I received the Vari-N-Duo about a week ago, along with a Gold'n'Blue polariser - from testing so far, it looks to be an extremely useful landscape filter (practically a dedicated waterfall/running water filter), especially on a telephoto lens; due to its thickness, however, it will vignette on a 24-105mm f/4L (a travel/trekking mainstay) until around 40-45mm. It won't fit on a 16-35mm F/2.8L II due to the 82mm filter size, but that is likely of little concern due to the heavy vignetting an 82mm version would likely cause on that lens anyway.

Has anyone tested it for vignetting on the 24-70mm f/2.8L? Are there any wide-angle wide or prime lenses where it won't vignette?

Thanks...that's good to know since I also carry the 24-105L. Since all of my L's have the same 77mm thread (thank you, Canon), using this filter shouldn't be an issue.

TaDa wrote in post #7572966
Difference is there, but it's subtle. I personally prefer the effect of the warming polarizer better.

Thanks. This filter has been on my list for a while...the only drawback was the incompatibility with a polarizer (original Vari ND). This improvement may put this filter back on top of my list.

And in case anyone is wondering whether so much glass in front of your lens will have a huge effect on image quality (read sharp), this is a crop of the 34mm shot. I bumped up the exposure to show the material on the blinds. Shot at 34mm, f/2.8, 1/100

Further proof that a quality filter will not degrade an image...

There's no "filter off" image to make a comparison with. This is not proof of anything.

argyle wrote in post #7573414
Further proof that a quality filter will not degrade an image...

homersapien wrote in post #7573461
There's no "filter off" image to make a comparison with. This is not proof of anything.

Your comment has been duly noted... Seeing that one can clearly make out the texture and stray threads in the fabric, as well as the pattern in the wood grain of the blinds, even after having all that glass placed in front of the lens, would lead an experienced shooter to the same conclusion. Before/after shots aren't always necessary...

Thank you for a very good review. I look forward to further pictures you take with it.

I've been interested in an ND filter, either one with or without the CPL built in, for a very long time. You're making me want it more and more.

me

Had some time to run down to the Long Island Sound and take a few pics. I wanted to see how decent the CPL was as well as how else this thing could come in useful, other than waterfalls.

First couple shots were to test the value of an ND/CPL combo.

It was windy as hell on the water, so this combo definitely showed value. The CPL was great at cutting through the reflections on the water. The ND great for slowing the shutter down to smooth out the choppy water. Both shots are at f/11. First is at 1/5, and you can definitely see that the chop of the water detracts from the image. The second shot is at 2 seconds, and you can tell that it smooths out the water very nicely.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO