Does this lens need a filter?
270521
many use an UV filter to protect the lens... you can use ND filter to cut down the light and capture the motion blur of your subject (e.g. water movement and so on). It depends what kind of effect you want apply to your picture, many effects are actually applicable on camera directly. If you mean to use a filter to correct defects, I don't see any defect that you could fix with a filter.The lens is versatile (compact, light and WR) but it's not famous for its resolution.Hope that clarify your doubts.
270522
I use UV or skylight filters, mainly to avoid dust and finger prints in the lens body, bersides my experience does not show me any another advantage. a lens hood certainly would do the job as long as it's placed in the lens; but dust and finger prints take place mainly, when switching lenses.
270523
For general use you don't have to use any filters on Pentax lens. But if you have a child less than 5 years old, you may need a UV just for protection. For some situation you will need plenty of filters, such as the skylight, ND, Cir
270524
HG-I am currently using without a filter for general, all situtation photos... however, depending our your style or use, that may be something you'd want. Some folks like to have just for protection, but I find the lens-hood does a good job with that... I haven't seen anything like "flaring" to warrant my need for a filter. Hope this helps. T~*
270525
No, I use a polorizing filter that will boost color. I also have a UV that does protect the lens. It 's a great lens without any as well
270526
Good question, and a controversial topic. Lots of discussion on various forums. For imaging, no, it isn't needed. For protection, maybe. I use filters to protect my lenses. They're cheaper to replace. Or, they would be, but I've never damaged a filter, much less a lens. I still use them, and have since my old 35 mm film days (that's 35 years of not damaging the end of a lens, including a couple of Himalayan treks). The hood also protects the glass, and many consider that adequate. I just can't get past the relative cost to replace should my clumsiness finally break through, so to speak.
270527
Good question, and a controversial topic. Lots of discussion on various forums. For imaging, no, it isn't needed. For protection, maybe.I use filters to protect my lenses. They're cheaper to replace. Or, they would be, but I've never damaged a filter, much less a lens. I still use them, and have since my old 35 mm film days (that's 35 years of not damaging the end of a lens, including a couple of Himalayan treks). The hood also protects the glass, and many consider that adequate. I just can't get past the relative cost to replace should my clumsiness finally break through, so to speak. Good question, and a controversial topic. Lots of discussion on various forums. For imaging, no, it isn't needed. For protection, maybe.I use filters to protect my lenses. They're cheaper to replace. Or, they would be, but I've never damaged a filter, much less a lens. I still use them, and have since my old 35 mm film days (that's 35 years of not damaging the end of a lens, including a couple of Himalayan treks). The hood also protects the glass, and many consider that adequate. I just can't get past the relative cost to replace should my clumsiness finally break through, so to... » Read More Good question, and a controversial topic. Lots of discussion on various forums. For imaging, no, it isn't needed. For protection, maybe.I use filters to protect my lenses. They're cheaper to replace. Or, they would be, but I've never damaged a filter, much less a lens. I still use them, and have since my old 35 mm film days (that's 35 years of not damaging the end of a lens, including a couple of Himalayan treks). The hood also protects the glass, and many consider that adequate. I just can't get past the relative cost to replace should my clumsiness finally break through, so to speak. « Show Less
270528
No more then any other lens. I use a UV filter to protect the lens/glass but not required. If you choose to you can use other select filters.
270529
Not really, although I have a tiffen 62mm uv filter primarily to protect the lens against dirt and mist. I have been happy with image quality and lens versatility. I also have used a tiffen 62mm circular polarizer, but it has rarely been necessary. The lens hood works well to reduce glare and "ghosting". Hope this helps.
270530
No it does not but a polorizing filter will impove color and a UV offers protection. Without any filter it is a great lens.
1523982
I really don't think so, if you want to use a filter with this camera I recommend you buy a square filter and hold it over your lens while shooting photos.
130783
Nope. No filter required. Nothing required but water. We love ours! Works well.
1936560
No, it just clips on the end of the lens. However, it doesn't interfere with placing filters on the lens itself.
638581
Hi Carol, Unfortunately, it does not. But it is an absolutely fantastic lens.
845027
You can add filters designed for that lens (50mm f/1.8). Same as the hood. See previous answer
506057
This lens takes a 72mm front filter. I highly recommend getting at least a UV filter and a circular polarizer
1781448
Nope, Ive now had mine for quite a while and everything is working just fine. No filters needed.
1332495
No. Polarizing filters are extra. Go for a circular polarizer though and get a good one. This camera deserves it.
498607
Hi Matt, I believe that lens takes a 58mm filter, which will be a lot less expensive than the 77mm I had to buy for my lens. Double check. It should say on the front of the lens. Make sure you order the right size. I've been happy with these filters. Good luck. Larry
1249519
Its called a lens hood, and it comes with the camera. If you use this hood, you cannot add a lens filter.
875663
Hi Keith, I do not use filters on my lenses. I do use the lens hoods. After 33 years as a professional photographer I find the filters a bit of a pain.
630853
You have a superb, professional quality lens. I'm old school, and believe filters should match the quality of the glass. Hence, I use B & W regular neutral density filter. I'm away from my office, and can't give you all the details off the box. I haven't found a thin filter is necessary for what I do with this lens--principally interior and exterior shots of buildings and their details with a Nikon D700 at complete range of F stops and focus lengths. Good luck with your shooting.
694080
No, that lens takes a 52 mm filter according to nikonusa.com (http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2200/AF-S-DX-Micro-NIKKOR-40mm-f%252F2.8G.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs)
876486
The filter is not included, but any 52mm should work. There are some on Amazon for 5-10 dollars.
1371093
I looked up the model of your camera and from what I can see looking at the front of the lens I would say no, because it doesn't appear the lens has threads for a filter, but it would perhaps be a good idea to write the manufacturer and ask that question
1337727
You should absolutely protect you investment. Use a filter. The picture affect is so finite that you really cant tell if a picture was shot with a filter or not. In my case, better a cracked piece of glass from the filter vs. a cracked or scratched lens. Its even good to have on to protect from dust and debris.