Uhhh, but he is the OP. Minor detail
Not really controversial as much as it is highly subjective.
So, isn't that inviting participation?
Now, if you want my answer, here it is:
I don't believe in using filters, at least to protect the lens. I have seen no empirical evidence that they do the job. My lenses have been without filters for years with no issues. The hood works well enough.
That may be, but it seems like he did not want your particular form of participation, but i could be wrong.
Yes, you are wrong.
No. He's not wrong. If someone has something constructive to add, that's great. But "..this crap again" is not constructive or appreciated. There was no call for a juvenile comment like that. If he didn't like the thread, then he could have moved on and posted nothing. "...this crap again" helps no one and shows a total lack of respect for the thread, and myself. It wasn't appreciated and I didn't want his form of participation.
I used an UV just once and got that horrible CA, I binned it. It was a cheap one but even so.
It was a reply to AC016, which was MY opinion. No need to blow a fuse because someone made a Dikkhead comment in your thread. Especially someone who is known to make Dikkhead comments from time to time.
An option you might want to consider is the Hoya HD Protector... They're tough little suckers, I can tell you that.When I was shooting an SLR, I purchased UV filters to protect the lens. I noticed how they made the sky pop. I loved it. When I purchased my DSLR and lenses I had read that a UV wasn't required for the pop, but an NC filter would be good for protection. I bought one for my lenses. Then after reading on here and other places I saw recommendations for CPL filters. On that I bought one for each of my lenses. Yes they are easy to clean (blowing desert conditions) and if I remember to adjust them when the relationship to the angle of the sun changes, they do help bring out the details in skys, etc. Some days I become frustrated with them, because I shoot and then think about adjusting the CP-L. In my walk around shooting conditions I may see something (bird flying) in the sun, across from the sun, away from the sun... and the filter is off in three out of the four shots. This frustrates me with the CP-L and I am tempted to put the NC's back on. Basically, I am still weighing out the options, also. I do like having something more than the lens cap on the end of my lenses though.
This time, before the Water festival in Thailand, starts 13 of April, I will get a UV Filter for my 16-85 for sure. The water drops are very nasty on the lens, Cos they're not clean Water drops. On this event people mix talcum-powder into the water and that makes the gear damaged. So I don't use that much my cam or go with the car on the street. You need a very hard cleaning time to get the car's windshield clean after this event.
Yes, I am sur eto get the UV for my 16-85 and thi stime not a cheap one. I need a good one.
BTW, any suggestion what is good UV for my 16-85?
Michael, when you mentioned the talcum powder, are you referring to a color run?
No, not really, it is like this: The magic and traditions of Thai New Year (Songkran)
Lastly, I shoot with CPL filter almost all of the time because I like the effect it has on my shots when shooting outdoors. There's a LOT of what I call "adverse reflective light" out there a CPL removes and I think it gives outdoor shots a sort of boost in saturation and clarity that you can't get any other way, including in post processing. It's kind of one of those things: you don't really notice it until you see it removed. All my lenses wear CPL's and only come off when they need to for specific situations. Once we're back to Situation Normal, the CPL goes back on.
.....