My review of the Xume filter adapter system
- Thread starter 480sparky
- Start date
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Psssst - I mentioned it!! 
Nice review. You certainly invested heavily in it - I hope it works for you. I bought a single ring and adapter for use on my ND400 since it's the one filter I find myself removing as a part of shooting, figuring if I liked it I'd buy more. Great idea, but even with a nominally shallow filter they essentially double (or better) the depth of the filter. I'm interested in what you find, but for me I found that the 16-35mm vignetted thru 24mm, and the 24-120mm vignetted through 38mm. So, technically I'm covered from 24-120mm across the two lenses, but wide open at 16mm I've got some significant vignetting to deal with...
24-120mm at 24mm
16-35mm at 16mm
To truly make this work I believe it requires you to buy a filter 1-2 sized bigger than you need, and they should incorporate the step-up into the filter adapter. Of course, this nullifies the ability to take the hood on and off with the filter on, and would likely require folks like us who have filters to go out and buy replacements, which no one wants to do. My brother and I spent a long time talking to the guy there and there isn't a perfect way to make this happen that also allows for the lens hood, but I would rather know that I cannot use/remove the hood when using this than to lose this range of focal length.
With that said, I decided to keep what I bought because it will come in handy when I'm using the ND400 on a dim day over top of rocks or moving water.
I know YouTube comments are a PITA, but if you turn on moderation then you can at least filter the BS and I believe folks who find your video to add experiences like mine to help with their decision making process.
Nice review. You certainly invested heavily in it - I hope it works for you. I bought a single ring and adapter for use on my ND400 since it's the one filter I find myself removing as a part of shooting, figuring if I liked it I'd buy more. Great idea, but even with a nominally shallow filter they essentially double (or better) the depth of the filter. I'm interested in what you find, but for me I found that the 16-35mm vignetted thru 24mm, and the 24-120mm vignetted through 38mm. So, technically I'm covered from 24-120mm across the two lenses, but wide open at 16mm I've got some significant vignetting to deal with...
24-120mm at 24mm
16-35mm at 16mm
To truly make this work I believe it requires you to buy a filter 1-2 sized bigger than you need, and they should incorporate the step-up into the filter adapter. Of course, this nullifies the ability to take the hood on and off with the filter on, and would likely require folks like us who have filters to go out and buy replacements, which no one wants to do. My brother and I spent a long time talking to the guy there and there isn't a perfect way to make this happen that also allows for the lens hood, but I would rather know that I cannot use/remove the hood when using this than to lose this range of focal length.
With that said, I decided to keep what I bought because it will come in handy when I'm using the ND400 on a dim day over top of rocks or moving water.
I know YouTube comments are a PITA, but if you turn on moderation then you can at least filter the BS and I believe folks who find your video to add experiences like mine to help with their decision making process.
Here's my vignette test results. Although I tested the rings at several FLs and apertures, I thought I'd just post 4 of them here for simplicity's sake. I tested both my 17-35/2.8 AF-D with the thickest filter I have (Singh-Ray VND) and the same filter on my 24-120/4.
17-35, at 17mm @ f/22: Without Zume adapters:
With the adapters:
24-120 without the adapters (24mm f/22):
With the adapters:
17-35, at 17mm @ f/22: Without Zume adapters:
With the adapters:
24-120 without the adapters (24mm f/22):
With the adapters:
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
So you're getting vignetting with your filtersbefore you put the adapters on?! That's pretty significant, particularly on the 17-35mm. That's gotta be a thick filter. How deep is the ring? Most of mine are about 4mm beyond the end of the lens and I don't get anything like that on either the 16-35mm or the 24-120mm.
Oh hell, I just checked - that filter is 17mm deep (if it's this one)!! That's actually quite ridiculous - particularly for a $390 filter (no wonder it "works"). I can stack 3 ND's and come in under that in both depth and cost. If I paid that for the convenience of an ND I'd have been rather perturbed. That filter alone vignettes worse than any filter I own with the Xume attached.
When you do your review, I'd leave this one for last as an "oh, by the way, if you want to use a really, really deep filter...", and base the review on a filter of normal depth.
Oh hell, I just checked - that filter is 17mm deep (if it's this one)!! That's actually quite ridiculous - particularly for a $390 filter (no wonder it "works"). I can stack 3 ND's and come in under that in both depth and cost. If I paid that for the convenience of an ND I'd have been rather perturbed. That filter alone vignettes worse than any filter I own with the Xume attached.
When you do your review, I'd leave this one for last as an "oh, by the way, if you want to use a really, really deep filter...", and base the review on a filter of normal depth.
Have you tried any slim profile filters? They are specifically made for wide angle lenses.
Oh, sure I have. My 10x ND and CPL are the thin variety. They don't vignette when the Xumes are taken off. I just posted the VND results as that's my thickest 77mm filter.
If I truly need a shot at 17mm or 20mm with the VND and no vignetting, I've got primes and adapter rings to pull it off with.