Do I need lens filters for 60 mm macro lens for Nikon D50 SLR?

[cinske]

I just bought a Nikon D50 SLR. I have on hold to purchase a Nikon Normal Macro 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro Nikkor Autofocus Lens. The salesman for the lens told me that filters were necessary to prevent distortion of macro photos (especially at 6.1 megapixels like the D50), glare and to protect the lens from scratches. I understand the last point, but do I really need these lenses to not have distorted, glaring photos?!? Secondly, is $99 a bad price for a 3 filter kit? (Salesman said it's down from $179.) I already spent a lot on the whole rig. I will be using it to take botanical photos, mostly flower close-ups.

Any advice appreciated, I'm new to photography.

[Warin]

Whata load of hooey!

filters wont do anything to "prevent distortion" or anything like that. They certainly might help with glare and/or protecting the front element of the lens, but they certainly arent needed.

Buy individual filters as you need them. I doubt a 3 for 99 dollar set of filters is going to be the greatest quality, and likely has a big commision attached to it, making it worth selling to every customer.

[erichlund]

I just bought a Nikon D50 SLR. I have on hold to purchase a Nikon Normal Macro 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro Nikkor Autofocus Lens. The salesman for the lens told me that filters were necessary to prevent distortion of macro photos (especially at 6.1 megapixels like the D50), glare and to protect the lens from scratches. I understand the last point, but do I really need these lenses to not have distorted, glaring photos?!? Secondly, is $99 a bad price for a 3 filter kit? (Salesman said it's down from $179.) I already spent a lot on the whole rig. I will be using it to take botanical photos, mostly flower close-ups.

Any advice appreciated, I'm new to photography.
Hmmmmm. I don't have this lens, but I've never heard distortion being an issue with it. If you are worried about lens flare, a lens hood will do wonders. I'd chalk this one up to another salesman trying to pad the bill with high margin accessories.

There are some filters to consider. I believe this is a 52mm lens ring, so most of what you need you will also need for your 50mm f/1.8 (you may not have it yet, but if you're around here long enough, you probably will). At any rate, a circular polarizer is certainly a good filter to have for shooting in sunlight. It can be used to deepen the blue in skies, and cut through the glare on glass and water (glare on the subject, not lens flare). Do not get the cheaper linear polarizer, and get a good quality filter. Never put cheap filters on your expensive lenses, because you just turn them into cheap lenses.

Another to consider immediately is the "protective" filter (Sky 1a and UV filters have both been used for this role). I don't use one, but I won't argue with anyone that does.

When you get more understanding of metering, you will want to consider the use on Neutral Density filters. They don't change anything colorwise but just reduce the amount of light getting into the camera. That can be useful if you want to open up your lens to get a shallow depth of field, but it's too bright for the camera to handle. There are graduated versions of these to balance a scenes brightness.

The main advice here is to get filters you need because they serve a purpose you are trying to achieve. Don't go buying a kit of filter just because they are bundled at a cheap price, and don't buy cheap filters. Buy good filters that perform well and they will become useful tools.

[jcon]

Never, NEVER listen to a salesman! Especially when it involves them pushing a sale on you. I would tell you to go the the salesmans manager, but I have a feeling the manager tells the sales people to pull the "you need this" tactic. I used to work at BB and trust me, that crap goes on!

[cinske]

When the salesman first starting talking about an "added accessory at a low price," I thought it was just a sales pitch, too. But when he began explaining that the distortion/glare problem these filters help with do not occur on film cameras but result from "pixillation" in digital cameras, I was no longer sure as I'm new to digital... so there is no truth to that?

What filter would you recommend for UV protection?

One more question: if you had a Nikon D50, would you buy a Nikon 60mm/f2.8 macro lens over a Sigma 50 mm/f2.8 macro lens? The Nikon cost a little over $100 more than the Sigma. I decided to splash out for the Nikon b/c it's a long term investment and I didn't want to turn around and find the Sigma is not so hot and feel like I should have just spent the extra money for a better lens but not be able to afford to do so. Like I said before, this is all aimed at taking botanical photographs, mostly macro.

[jcon]

Get the Nikon 60mm. As for the salesman, again, hes feeding you crap. I sometimes get a laugh at how they make up stuff to sound like they know what they are talking about. As for the UV filter, I am not an expert and I am sure someone will help you with that. With my FZ20 I used the Hoya 62mm UV Super Multi-Coated HMC Pro filter to protect it. I dont use filters with my D50. Again, I am sure someone will help you with that.

[K1W1]

I will be using it to take botanical photos, mostly flower close-ups.

Any advice appreciated, I'm new to photography.

A good tripod and flash (SB600 or SB800) would be far better investments for botanical photos than a three filter kit.

[tekriter]

Let me add on a bit to this thread...

That salesman did have one point correct, a skylight or UV filter can help protect your expensive lens front element from scratches and dings.

I have a UV filter on my 18-200 zoom that stays on my camera most of the time. My 9-year old uses the camera quite a bit, and she's just learning how to take care of the equipment. Sometimes her fingers end up poking the front of the filter, as well.

The UV filter will not change your photographs, unless you skimp out and get a cheapie that may actually make flare WORSE. Look for a good brand like Hoya for instance, with multi-coatings to prevent reflections and flare. Their glass is high quality also.

I think it's borderline criminal that sales people will BS you like this guy did. Nikon's macro lenses are a world standard for quality, and to think that he says a $33 filter is going to improve "pixelation" shows a deplorable lack of respect for his customers.

Not long ago I was in a local store which used to have a good reputation, and I hadn't been there for a while. I'm in the market for a Nikkor 80-200 2.8, and I went to this place to see if they might have a used one for sale. They didn't, and the owner started pushing a Phoenix lens on me. Phoenix is an off-brand, definitely a step below Sigma and Tamron, about on the level of Quantaray. Anyway, this guy starts telling me that Nikon was mad at him for carrying Phoenix lenses, that Nikon knew that Phoenix lenses were so much better than theirs, and so on.

It was really sad, because I used to respect this guy's opinion. Now he was just pumping what he had in lieu of what he didn't have in stock.

[coldrain]

You do not need to consider ANY filter at all. Especially not a UV filter, there is NO UV to be filtered with a macro lens! UV light can make pics hazy on higher altitudes, when you make landscape photos. But that is mainly a problem with film, digital sensors do not register UV much at all.

And to protect the fornt lens element it is a very silly practise to put filters on. If you are worried about a lens being scratched, then put the hood on since this will actually protect the lens, a glass filter will really not protect when you drop the camera or bump into something. But then again, no one on here ever scratched a lens while normally using it and putting the lens cap on when you dont use it.

Another point (for those who still want an UV filter for lens protection)... did you ever see a 60mm macro from Nikkor? The lens element is not exactly easily touched at all. It is very recessed into the lens casing, and you do NOT have to worry about it.

The only filter you might want to consider is a polarized light filter, but that one is not really necessary with macro photography... just can add more saturation for instance in fall when ou want to make a photo from coloured foliage against a blue sky.
But if you do get one for that purpose, get a GOOD multicoated one, like a B&W or from the expensive range from Hoya.

So... just get the lens, and personally I would get the lens from another vendor.... I would not want to sponsor this salesman's BS. And good reputable online vendors might even save you a bit on the lens.

[Peterden]

There have been a couple of mentions of the need to buy a quality polarizing filter, and someone also made a distinction between circular and linear polarizers. Can any of you elaborate on the differences and more specifically what the concern is with inexpensive or linear polarizing filters (asssuming the filter's glass is of decent enough quality so as not to distort the image)?

I await your collective wisdom.

[coldrain]

Polirized light filters used to be of the 'linear' variety.
But they can wreak havoc with the AF systems of SLRs.
That is why they "circular" polarized light filters where introduced. After filtering they switch some light in "direction" again so teh AF systems can keep on working.

So, for a DSLR you will need a circular one.

[FishFace]

To take part of this topic - I'm also interested in whether I should invest in a protective filter (or more than one, of course.) Obviously if you crunch the lens into the floor, a filter's not going to help, so I want to know just how much a filter does against minor nicks and scratches - how much do these happen? Clearly I wouldn't put a lens in my pocket with my keys! :D

Cheers.

[jcon]

FF, I have seen NO need for a protective filter on my lenses. If the camera isnt in use, the cap is on at all times so there is no chance of scratching it. I am sure some will disagree but i dont want anything between my lense and the subject. If you take the time to care for your equipment, you will do fine without one!

[wh0128]

coldrains right about the front of the lense. go to nikondigital and check out how far the actual glass is set into the body of the lens. I agree with him that you probably don't need anything to protect it, or just get the polarizer which to me sounds a great deal. And the 60mm f/2.8 has a 62mm attachment size not a 52 like the guy said above. And if you happen to fall, my uncle always tried to land with the lense facing up, or else yoru screwed if you break the mount.

[eduardofrances]

Filters tend to be more expensive for 2 reasons

1. the quality of the glass
2. the effect they produce

the important now is the first one, simply cheap filters have cheap glass that would only lower the sharpness of your lens.

So if you are going to buy filters, the quality costs money, in order that you wont degrade the sharpness of your photos, buy a good filter :)