[northcoastgreg]

Here are 720 pixel wide crops from near the centre of a k5iis with da14mm. Top is bare lens, bottom is with the Neewer ND1000 77mm filter with identical processing as the top to show the colour shift. There might be a smidge more detail without the filter, but given the 59 second exposure on a windy day, I think it holds up well!

I suspect what we're seeing is not so much a loss of detail as a loss of local contrast. These filters are hardly stellar in terms of light transmission, and they are therefore prone to veiling flare. Although the loss of contrast in these examples is fairly minor, nonetheless I find it unacceptable. I've spent literally thousands of dollars buying lenses that deliver stellar contrast. Indeed, I regard lens contrast as more important than sharpness, and I'm certainly not going to compromise lens contrast to save an odd $100 or so. One thing that's being overlooked here is that light is very tricky and can cause problems when least expected. I had picked up a 72mm Hoya single-coated polarizer filter in an estate sale of $2. I thought it would be perfect for my new DA 16-85. Initial tests seemed to be quite promising. Then a few months later, after shooting a waterfall on an overcast day, I was shocked to see that images looked rather washed out on my LCD. Since the DA 16-85, with its HD coatings, is a very contrasty lens, this was baffling. I decided to try shooting the waterfall without the filter, and lo and behold, the images were once more rich and contrasty. Since then I have been in the process of replacing all my single coated Hoya filters (none of which were super cheap, like these Neewers) with expensive multi-coated replacements. I'm not thrilled with spending the extra money --- but the consistency of image quality makes it worth it. While it's true you can get away with using cheap filters with only minimal loss of quality in some types of light, you never know when that cheap filter is going to flare up and ruin your shot. Nor is it an issue merely of shooting into streetlights or sunsets. Serious veiling flare can happen when least expected, like when shooting a waterfall. ND filters are often using when shooting waterfalls, right?

A previous poster wished Neewer made these filters for 82mm. Presumably, that's to use on the DFA 24-70 matched with the K-1. That lens/camera combo costs close to $3,000. The main reason, I would assume, why most photography enthusiasts would drop $3,000 on lens/camera combo is to achieve greater quality in their images. So why compromise that quality by putting a cheap filter in front of it, just to save 100 shekels? I'm not sure that makes any sense.

[BigMackCam]

I suspect what we're seeing is not so much a loss of detail as a loss of local contrast. These filters are hardly stellar in terms of light transmission, and they are therefore prone to veiling flare. Although the loss of contrast in these examples is fairly minor, nonetheless I find it unacceptable. I've spent literally thousands of dollars buying lenses that deliver stellar contrast. Indeed, I regard lens contrast as more important than sharpness, and I'm certainly not going to compromise lens contrast to save an odd $100 or so.
...
While it's true you can get away with using cheap filters with only minimal loss of quality in some types of light, you never know when that cheap filter is going to flare up and ruin your shot. Nor is it an issue merely of shooting into streetlights or sunsets. Serious veiling flare can happen when least expected, like when shooting a waterfall. ND filters are often using when shooting waterfalls, right?

A previous poster wished Neewer made these filters for 82mm. Presumably, that's to use on the DFA 24-70 matched with the K-1. That lens/camera combo costs close to $3,000. The main reason, I would assume, why most photography enthusiasts would drop $3,000 on lens/camera combo is to achieve greater quality in their images. So why compromise that quality by putting a cheap filter in front of it, just to save 100 shekels? I'm not sure that makes any sense.

Greg, what you say makes perfect sense - if, that is, you intend to use the filters frequently, as a significant and essential component of your photographic kit.

For my own part, I use ND filters very infrequently. I'm happy to invest considerable funds in equipment I'll use regularly, but I'm just not prepared to drop $100 - $200 for an occasional-use product. These Neewer filters allow me to get the results I want (our standards may be very different, of course) for those few occasions where they're required. A little pre-shot care and post-shot chimping helps to avoid ruined shots due to flare... but, for those situations where nothing but an expensive, high-end filter will do, I'm happy to step aside and let someone else get the shot for now

[IggzDaLoc]

A previous poster wished Neewer made these filters for 82mm. Presumably, that's to use on the DFA 24-70 matched with the K-1. That lens/camera combo costs close to $3,000. The main reason, I would assume, why most photography enthusiasts would drop $3,000 on lens/camera combo is to achieve greater quality in their images. So why compromise that quality by putting a cheap filter in front of it, just to save 100 shekels? I'm not sure that makes any sense.

That's the thing... It's not a compromise. I have that combo and use a $30 ICE ND filter relatively often (although not nearly as much as my Hoya CPL) and there is no/minimal color cast (evidently better than the neewer examples) while the IQ remains excellent. In fact, I've come to prefer this cheapo filter to my B+W NDs. Now I wouldn't want to cheap out on graduated NDs because that enters a whole new playing field but that's a different story.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[BrianR]

An overall contrast loss is most definitely present, compare the relative brightness of the two sides of the barn. I wouldn't draw any hard conclusions from this example though, as I said the light was changing and the sun flirted with cloud cover during the long exposure, so there is another factor involved than just the filter. Also, I don't have a lens hood for my da14mm... it came without one. My primary use for the da14mm is wide-angle close ups at the minimum focusing distance where the hood looks like it would be in the way, so I haven't been motivated to locate one. It's possible this hurts the filtered use more than my usual naked lens.

I'm in the same situation as Mike. How do you judge the value of spending $100+ for an extra 5 or 10% or 15% in quality (made up numbers)? This is definitely a personal judgement. If I was regularly producing and selling 4-6ft prints (or other demanding application) that depended on a filter like this, then the $100 would easily be justified. If I'm using it for the 5 or 6 landscape photos I take a year (and perhaps print 1 for myself), then I'll keep the $$, and take the hit from having to adjust the contrast in post (if it's even necessary).

My main ideas for this filter involve capturing motion with long exposures when it's otherwise impossible, and the images I have in mind generally won't hinge on having the absolute best micro-contrast available. I'm really trying to shift the daytime long-exposure aspect I love with pinhole photography over into the dslr world, and this certainly seems to fit my needs and budget. By comparison the the old paper negative pinhole, this combo is hyper sharp and the contrast is out of this world. You needs and mileage may vary!

[dr_Fell]

Hello. Did anyone tested Neewer ND8 for sharpness loss with longer (85mm and more) lens? Usually cheap filters do quite well on wider lens but real problems appear with longer lens...