ND filter.. Definitely not a variable?

[413x]

Having recently obtained a circular polarizer
Hoya HD CPL
I'm now wanting an ND solution.
I used this up near aysgarth falls (beautiful) but didn't expect it to be quite as bright as it was.
I was very limited in my ability to get passable motion pics bound by tiny tiny apertures

As with all this generally the variable easy option seems to be unpopular
Is it much better to get a couple of intermediate fixed stop filter and just adjust aperture?
Or the same principle as a zoom lens.. The flexibility mean you actually use it and accept the quality compromise?
Sane reason that as I tend to go to my pictures I am finding I use my fixed lenses less and less. I've barely touched my 35mm f1.4 sigma

 

[DBT85]

I have a Camdiox variable but I've not had a chance to properly test it out yet. Goes from 2 stop to 8 stop.

The thing to be wary of with variables is that at wider focal lengths and higher densities, you can get banding apparently, due to the way they work (dual CPL). I have no idea what that looks like though so can't say if it's something you'll want to avoid or not.

I imagine for most needs a 3 stop will suffice. That'd get you from f22 down to about f8.

 

[413x]

I have a Camdiox variable but I've not had a chance to properly test it out yet. Goes from 2 stop to 8 stop.

The thing to be wary of with variables is that at wider focal lengths and higher densities, you can get banding apparently, due to the way they work (dual CPL). I have no idea what that looks like though so can't say if it's something you'll want to avoid or not.

I imagine for most needs a 3 stop will suffice. That'd get you from f22 down to about f8.

2 to 8 is a good range. I've read about the issues at higher stop.
This would mainly be on my 10-22mm I suspect. You know.. The landscape water etc motion stuff.

I have seen what you have mentioned quite a lot.

 

[413x]

Thanks for the tip. Think I'm gonna go for the camidox. Seems to be highly regarded!