DIYPhotography.net

Since I'm a fanatic urbexer I go for the protection! 

If I'm not using filters, I usually leave the lens shade on, which provides a reasonable amount of protection (especially of long lenses). The filter has the advantage ot being kind of fool proof. And you get a bit less degradation with high quality filters. Hence buying pro grade filters to go with pro grade lens. A 5$ filter onto a +1000$ lens is just a shame ;-)

I've been in the use filter camp since I studied photography. One of my Lecturers recounted a similar story to you and from then on I've always ensured I have a filer on...

If I'm not using filters, I usually leave the lens shade on, which provides a reasonable amount of protection (especially on long lenses). The filter has the advantage ot being kind of fool proof. And you get a bit less degradation with high quality filters. Hence buying pro grade filters to go with pro grade lens. A 5$ filter onto a +1000$ lens is just a shame ;-)

I blogged about this recently! It saved this guy's lens: http://www.weshootphotos.com/?p=44 

That filter is vastly weaker than your front element (see: the video of someone hitting a 50mm f/1.8 front element with a hammer).  There's just as much chance (if not more) that the broken glass will scratch your front element as there is that whatever smashes the filter would have done damage if you didn't have the filter on - and even if the front element does get marked it has pretty much zero effect on anything other than resale value.
Plus the added cost and image degredation of the filter.

Lens hoods are far better for protection, filters are for dust/dirt/weather sealing on lenses that are otherwise sealed.  The only reason to use a clear filter on a non-sealed lens is if you're working in an environment that is going to dirty the front element, in which case the filter can either be roughly cleaned or treated like a rip-off visor cover.

If I'm not using filters, I usually leave the lens shade on, which provides a reasonable amount of protection (especially on long lenses). The filter has the advantage ot being kind of fool proof. And you get a bit less degradation with high quality filters. Hence buying pro grade filters to go with pro grade lens. A 5$ filter onto a +1000$ lens is just a shame ;-)

For my part, I have never worried too much about this.

This article, which some of you have probable seen, shows you how minor the effects are of small damage: http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html

As for UV filters in themselves, I find them useless in digital photography, since for RAW images you can do the same correction, and better, especially since you can tailor the filtering to the image.

On the other hand, the negative effects of UV filters and similar are also minor, so go for it, if you're a pansy.

Absolutely.. I had an incident where I put my camera in a precarious place while pulling out other equipment, and the camera took a nose dive out of the truck and crashed onto the pavement. The filter shattered and jammed, but the lens was okay. After a kind local loaned a wrench (yikes!) the filter was removed... threading was okay and so was the lens. 

I have always used UV filters on my cameras and would have it no other way, they have saved many of pennies....I used to work in a University Photographic Dept. and I instigated all our lenses having filters, saved a whole load of cash in the long run and still put the fear of God into the students who dropped them,watching as that UV filter obliterated itself on the ground and they all thought it was lens going up in smoke!!

I have the same lens, no protection. Maybe I'm living on the edge, maybe I'm lazy. Haven't decided. This article did help sway me in the no-filter direction:  http://bythom.com/filters.htm

Studio/Sports: Hood

Travel: Filter

Shows/Street: Hood + Filter

PS: Not always. Each situation asks a particular (or none) protection.

42 years and dozens of lenses WITH filters and I never damaged a filter or a lens. When I converted to digital I stopped buying filters.

No filters since I did this experiment. Pic to the left is with filter, to the right is without.

Okay, both the lens and the filter could easily be better quality, but since a lot of people  walk around with kit lenses and cheap filters, I claim that the observation is valid :-) (I'm not buying a high quality filter just to do an experiment, feel free to replicate and show that I'm  wrong)

http://blognamn.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/2008-09-131.jpg

If need be, I do use a cir-pol or ND filter, but not primarily as a lense shield.

When shooting in a dirty or crowded place, I simply put the lense cap when I feel it's safer.

I'm the same as you. I use a B+W for my 100-400 and about two years ago, my lens hot the ground... thanks I was having it on, 'cos when I saw all the broken glass on the ground unnerved me thinking it was the lens' glass. when I remembered the filter was on I was so glad I could cry.

i use a cheap one and when i'm ready to shoot, i take it off. no biggie.  if i need my camera ready, i use the lens hood and no filter.  i'm not paying 80$ for a filter, i always hold my camera close to my body like it's a broken limb, i protect the lens with my hand, my body and the lens hood. i dare something to bump my baby. :)

I use hoods on all of my lenses. It does bother me that they don't come with the lens and while hoods are cheaper that premium filter they still run $20-$40. These are the camera equivalent to car floormats - throw them in for free and make a big deal about it!

I take the filters off for weddings and other client events and portrait sessions.  On certain lenses, UV filters will create green ghosting.  I have used cheap filters and the most highly rated filters, and they all do this (I backlight a lot).  Now I just go unprotected when the pictures matter.  I also use hoods whenever practical.

If I would have an expensive lens attached like yours or any other prolens - Yes I would. But on my cheap Nikon lenses I never do this because image quality matters.

Put me in the no filter camp. Hood yes, filter no.

$1600 lens shot through an $80 filter.  nice.

I would like to hear a poll of hood+ filter users to see how many filters get broke. I have a hard time imagining how the filter ring can take an impact with a hood properly in place. I still use a cp filter at times and would consider it in a very dirty environment perhaps in conjunction with a rain cover to protect the body and controls. My d300 has very good weather sealing that has worked in significant rain, snow and sand so I can be confident the camera and sealed lenses will be fine. The extra protection would be mostly to avoid the meticulous cleaning.

I use expensive Nikon and Leica equipment. I always use an expensive and optically excellent filter to protect my lenses especially the very wide, as 18 or 21 mm where the lens shade is so shallow. The problem is the expensive point and shoot I use which is the Leica DLux 5 where there is no provision for a protective filter. When the lens gets damaged the camera is toast!!! Great for the Leica company in extra sales, bad for the active photographer who will take chances to get a picture.....

Since I compared pictures with / without filters (even the most expensive filters); all change the picture in worst. The good lenses actually not need a piece of cheap glass in front of them. I do use lens hoods as a method of protection.

- Why would you spend $1600 on quality optics, and then degrade them by putting a cheap piece of crappy glass between it and your subject? See the above links from bythom and blognamn

- Your front element is much stronger than that cheap piece of crappy glass. Here's one example, using the cheapest lens that Canon makes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzOLbMPe0u8

- The front element is much more tolerant of minor defects than you'd think. See the above kurtmonger.com link. Or this one from lensrentals.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches

Unless it's a CPL, it stays off.... In its place are lenshoods. Always always always... never leave home without 'em

While I do use filters a lot (I mostly shoot black and white film and use them for contrast and tonality adjustment where appropriate) I use a hood on all my lenses and as well as the potential improvements in image quality they protect both the lens and any filter I happen to be using against just the sort of incident you suffered. Yes, I've unintentionally tested this! ;-) I didn't break anything and didn't have to spend time removing shards of filter glass from my lens front element either.

A cheap lens with an expensive filter makes no sense at all (I'd be more worried about the stupid fragile filter than the relatively sturdy lens front element!), any filter is going to reduce image quality in some cases and life's too short to "fix it in photoshop" all the time. If I had expensive lenses I'd make sure they were covered by insurance of some sort, just in case. I may add a single decent UV filter to my stack eventually, just in case I find myself shooting in harsh conditions like salt water spray or blowing sand but again, that's "appropriate usage".

I always use a hood and never use protective filters. Why? Simple math. To have any chance of not destroying the native lens' IQ, one must use the best quality filters. These often cost well over $100 a piece. Even then, I suspect IQ is compromised in some situations but well call it even. Multiply this times the number of lenses you need to protect and is adds up fast.

The odds of seriously damaging the front element is still pretty slim for most folks. If you're shooting landscapes or portriats and execcise reasonable care, it's extremely unlikely. If you're shooting Baja racing, it's a whole lot more liklely. If you use a lens hood all the time, as I do, the kind of impacts that would break the front element with a hood attached are pretty likely to destroy the filter and front element if one were attached.

In the unlikely event that teh front element is damaged despite the hood, the lens is not a total loss. It can be repaired for a reasonable cost by the manufacturer.

i've used a skylight filter on all my lenses since I first into photography in 1972. sacrificed a few filters but never a lens. I've got polarizer & uv filters, but skylight is my pick for least effect on shots.

I use them occasionally but more often than not I just ensure my lens cap is on when I am not using it and where possible use a lens hood.

Each lens in my bag has a filter on them. I'll see if there's a difference with or without a filter...although, I have not noticed anything like the examples above (with a such a  foggy or grainy image) using a filter.

I recently bought a DSLR after being a SLR user many years ago.  No filters for me unless it's a Circ Polarizer for special circumstances.  The camera is a tool.  I can't imagine why I would negatively affect everything I do with it to keep it safe from a potential (and rare) situation.  I also don't always use a lens hood, I'm just not convinced they really add anything.

I used to put filters on my lenses. If I am in an "dirty" enviornment, like a beach on a windy day I will use one. In a questionable enviorment I will have on on but will remove it for a shot if I feel it's "safe" otherwise no filter (unless I need an ND or something like that). Like others stated why put a $50 peice of glass on a $1500 lens. Alternately if I feel its a "rough" enviornment I'll use my less expensive camera/lens combinations to minimize my loses.

I leave a filter on when doing street photography and running around with my kids, but take them off for fashion, portraits & anything with a light source in the picture.

I've alwaysed used a UV filter because I was told that's what you do, and I followed along blindly.  However after reading some of these comments I think I'll do some experimenting.

While doing a desert trek into the Sahara, the saddle attachments on my camel broke and I fell off the back onto the road.  I landed on my camera, which was fine except the shattered filter.  I was glad to have the filter in place to save my $600 wide-angle lens. (I also broke a toe in the process, but those heal).  So yes, a filter is a very affordable way to protect your lens.  

Travels to Morocco: Three Days in the Atlas Mountains, the Sahara and Falling from a Camel

I once put down my camera on a counter while I was organising my gear. Someone bumped the camera and it went crashing to the floor, lens first.  The impact was so bad that I ended up needing to cut the filter off the lens.  As for the lens, it was perfectly fine.

However I do recommend getting a good quality filter, inspecting it regularly and replacing the filter every few years.  Lens' last much longer than filters.

I'd rather use a cheap condom than none at all.

Filter for me thank you very much. Even if I do lose a little 'feeling' ;-)

I'm in the don't use a filter for protection camp.  The front element is pretty tough, but even if you do crack it, you may not even notice (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches).  I always have the lens hood on my lenses (I even went and bought one for my cheap kit lens - just for protection) and when not using my lenses, the lens cap goes straight back on.

The way I see it is that the hood will increase contrast and make your photos look better, filters add an extra air/glass transfer & can cause more flares (unless buying filters that cost more than the front element replacement anyway).  You may or may not notice than unless pixel peeping, but you know it'll cause issue at exactly the wrong time.

Filter yup.  Mostly because I only have the lenscap on if I have the camera in the bag or sitting on my desk.  If my camera is on me for the reason of shooting then I have no want to fumble with that cap to get a shot.

A few years back I dropped my camera, it landed lens down and broke the filter - smashed the filter's glass, distorted its ring so badly the filter wouldn't turn.  The lens had to go back to Canon to remove the filter, but the lens was OK.

Using some protection filter has 2 major disadvanteges:

1. There is a drop on the quality of the lens (in sharpness, contrast, and so on).

2. You know that you have protection and you do not pay atention so much to the dangers near you that might damage your lens.

There is no guarantee that the filter will protect the lens. I heard of situations when the lens was scratched by the broken glass of the filter.

So I will never use a protection filter.

No, I don't use protection filters. It never makes a picture better.

I have always used protection; I don't want to take any chances. Nothing against anyone who doesn't - just not my style. :)

It's interesting that the people who advocate using filters for protection and have had them shatter after a mishap seem to be convinced that the filter has somehow saved their lens. This may not necessarily be the case, it simply means that the filter broke. It doesn't automatically mean that the same mishap without a filter would have damaged the lens.

I use high quality polarisers and ND filters only when needed and fortunately have not had the misfortune of damaging any of my lenses to test the theory.

I always use a UV filter, but i've never noticed a degration in quality because I've never had a lens without a filter!

NO Filter is better 'cause they do slightly soften the image rendering
NO filter shooting back light at night because of specular effects
Always Hood On

I always use Filter in harmfull conditions, dust, sand, or near water splash.

lens hood provides enough protection without degrading image quality, so lens hood for me

Everyone has an opinion on this one.

I buy the best gear I can afford and altho I try to be careful I just tend to get my gear dirty and bump & bang it around around. Maybe it's not so important to me to be hyper-vigilant or maybe I'm just a klutz.

I have always used high quality Nikon filters. UV flters in the film days and now NC (No Colour) filters with digital. They are always getting dirty and therefore getting cleaned. I'd rather be cleaning the filters all the time than the front element.

I've scratched a few filters, too. Better that than the lens element. To me, resale matters and I'd rather spend my big money on upgrading than fixing a lens.

I think you need to look at the relative cost of filter vs. lens. You shouldn't be using a $20 filter and of course they will show degradation of the image. But an $80 or $100 filter is not a cheap piece of glass. They are optically correct and relative to their size and complexity, they are as costly or more costly than the best lens they go on.

I have good-quality filters on most of my lenses (especially the more expensive filters).

They do protect your lens - I recently damaged the outer thread on a filter; and if I hadn't had the filter on the lens, I would have damaged the thread on the filter itself, which would have been a much bigger issue!  See photos of the damage at

http://martybugs.net/blog/blog.cgi/gear/filters/Yes-Filters-Do-Protect-Y...

Yes, I definitely have UV-filters on all my lenses.  Even if you don't crash a lens like in the initial article mentioned,  abrasive dust and a rough environment damages the lens coating over time as well. 

When I started with my equipment roughly 30+ years ago, a new coating for a lens cost already around 250 DM in Germany at that time.  Other countries had more or less the same fee in their local currency.

It's always good to have a protection 'screwed on'.  Any repair of a lens (for scratches) is more expensive than replacing a protective filter. It an investment that should be considered done.

Since I have scratched my Sigma 70-200 I use it in other lenses

I have trouble believing that a filter saved most the lenses in these stories. When you drop a lens the filter is not going to ablsorb impact, the force is transmitted through to the lens. I am not physicist but you are basically saying that a thin piece of glass is absorbing the impact and therefore protecting the lens. This does not make sense. It is a hard object and will not (appreciably) reduce the force on the lense like a soft, resiliant material like foam. Protective cases; like better lense cases, camera cases, laptop bags etc are lined with foam or similar materials, this is because they do absorb some of the force and therefore may reduce the damage. Now, as far as flying debris, sand etc the filter certainly could protect the lens by deflecting these objects or simply stopping them. The filter could also protect the front of the lens rubbing across something (like a fence) but as stated in other postings a lens hood can generally do that. As I said, if I feel the lens is in danger of flying debris etc I will use a filter otherwise unless needed for effect I generally do not use a filter.

Having seen the difference that using a filter can make (reduced contrast and specular highlights caused by flare) I only use them in the wet and in particular with salt spray. Otherwise a lens hood is all the protection I use, and I use one all the time.

You're premise is that a broken filter saved your lens....

I'm not sure you can scientifically draw that conclusion....

better get mythbusters to test..

here is my theory...

if you had NO filter..... the fronty element of your lens is considerably thicker glass than your filter and may have survived the impact unscathed which would mean you lost an $80.00 filter for nothing...

or..

if you had a lenscap or rigid lenshood on either of which would have saved the lens AND the filter you'd be out less money than the price of the filter... Lenscap would have survived..... so you'd be out nothing..

which brings me to my final theory:

Neck straps were desinged to break your camera gear. Forcing you to buy replacement gear. This is why camera makers put straps on cameras in the first place...

Dangling the camera off your neck absolutely guarentees that sooner or later you will bang it against something..... a hip pack or camera bag is the safest place for your camera... you take it out, take your shot, then put it back in the case...

I keep a neutral density filter on when I'm anywhere near aggressive or gross contamination, such as hiking with my continually-muddy dog.  I can use a cheap lens wipe and pitch it when it gets dirty.  I'm willing to live with a little loss of sharpness or transmittance to avoid buying a new lens I can't afford.  If I'm in a controlled or clean environment, I remove the protection.  Occasionally I'll clean the filter in an ultrasonic cleaner at work to remove debris in the corners and threads.

at the very least all the original post proves is that the lens coating itself is durable enough to withstand having an impact with all the broken shards of glass from the broken filter, which in itself proves the filter wasn't needed to protect the lens from abrasions, which is the main reason people buy these filters for....

Y'all fell for clever marketing.

reminds me of the Genius that doubled his companies shampoo sales by adding one word to the label... Repeat... as in apply a quater sized dallop of shampoo into hand, apply to hair. Work into a Lather. Rinse.... REPEAT.

add the word REPEAT and sales doubled.

Buy this filter for protection... = people buying crap they don't need.

all the original post proves is that his lenses front element withstood being bombarded with shards of broken glass from the filter.

That all on it's own, proves how unneeded "filters for protection" really are.

After reading some articles on why not use the filters, I decided to go filter free and have been happy since. 

I did do a side by side comparison of a cheap canon UV filter and a pro B+W filter and there was a very noticable contrast difference between them.  UF fitlers (even the good ones) also tend to introduce rogue light into pictures.

I always use the lens hood though and this has probably saved me more then the filter would.  The hood for the most part prevents any of the glass of my lenses from ever getting near something that would potentially colide with them.  In terms of dirt, my lenses have remaind dirt free with little effort.

Those of you who remember your high school physics are well aware that adding two air-to-glass surfaces in front of a lens will degrade the image. If your images are mostly destined for viewing on an LCD and over the web you'll never see the difference. Depending upon the subject matter though, prints as small as 16 x 20 will reveal a demonstrateable reduction in resolution as a result of adding ANY filter. A lens hood should be used at all times, not just for protecting the lens, but to block stray light and to reduce light scatter within the lens.

That's what lens caps are for.

When I buy equipment, I usually scrape together the money to do so. Spending an extra hundred on a filter isn't really an option.

I have tried several cheaper to moderate filters, but have had so much lens flare from the extra glass that I have abandoned them.

I borrowed a friends lens with a very expensive b+w filter on it. I took shots with and without it, and noticed increased noise in the filter shots.

I have dropped lenses hard enought to dent and bend the casing, but I can honestly say that I have never damaged a lens element.

To me. Not worth the hassle. It's a gamble either way.

I prefer the lens hood rather than UV filter.

Since seeing ghosting effects after trying out my EF50 1.4 at night. I quit using UV filters.

Just had on small dot of damage on the frontglas of my Tamron after giving it so my girlfriend. She lost the lens hood. After having other problems with the Tamron I had to give it to Tamron service. They said it had no optical effect and did not change the frontglas. But they charged me the standart fee.

No filters here. Good ones are too expensive, cheap ones are too bad. My hoods do all the protecion I need. The only one left unprotected is my 50mm 1.8 (cheaper than a good filter)

Never been a fan of using a filter for protection. For effect absolutely. I do however usually always use a hood. As some have said earlier in the comments, front elements are made of stronger stuff than most filters. Should a filter break I don't really like the idea of all those glass fragments. If you break a front element you've really got to put some serious force behind it. It's more likely you’ll scratch the coating or lens itself. It doesn't necessary mean you need a new lens, just the front element replaced and a calibration. If you are shooting pro you really should be a CPS or Nikon equivalent member.

First: read up on optics. You'll realize then that although it's better to not have them, minute scratches to your front element are not that bit of a deal. Heck, a big gash on it is not going to be visible. Coatings work by reducing reflections. Reflections away from the front element go into Blaues Hinein and are harmless. So cleaning your front element is NBFD either.

Second: read up on physics. That 2.5 kg ubercamera+lens combo hitting the pavement. Do you really think that a 30g filter is going to make a difference? Neither does Sir Isaac Newton think that.

Third: look at your images. Halo's, ghosting, reduced contrast, exotic abberations, flares in all colors of the rainbow. Then remove the filter. Aaaaaahhhh....

I always use filters. Just got a brand spanking new EF 70-200mm ii there's not way I'd go outside without a filter on it. I have BW filters on all my lenses and IQ'snot a problem for me.

I used to use them all the time. Then it dawn on me that spending thousands for a sharper image, it did not make sense to degrade the quality with a filter. Can I tell the difference? Often not, but sometimes yes.

there are times I will use one, but rarely. I do have a UV Haze for each smaller lens, but they are like screw-on caps to me for when I'm packing the lens That is the time I fear damaging my lens, not wile I'm shooting.

I use the filters as lens protectors.  This past spring I was shooting sights in Mostar and, as usual, I was swapping lenses for different shot prospective. I had left my camera back pack unzipped and when I grabbed it, all flew out; cables, batteries, my flash and two lenses. One lens had its cover on and the other didn’t. The one without the cover landed on the lens’ face and broke, just like your cover photo. If it had smashed the lens glass it would have ruined my day, maybe the vacation.  Instead I was out a few dollars not hundreds.  And I learned a valuable lesson, don’t rush, always check all your gear before your next move.

Yes, I do. Here in Venezuela even a kit lens is priced at several months of work by a common citizen, so for me it is very important to ensure the integrity of my equipment, maybe more that achieving the highest quality in the final result. I do use hood in some case that is convenient.

if you leave the zero filter on it will be equally scratched as the lence would have been without it (if you happen to be careless about your material), so then you gained nothing. scratches are hardly visible on the images anyway.

My camera dropped once, in the sack but butter down of course and the filter was broken. Lucky you, welcome to camp one you might say. Well maybe not, because the broken filter could have done more damage to the lens than the sack would have done.

Lens hood+cap at the appropriate times, care for your lens.

I keep them on at all times.  And when the camera is away, I keep a cap on.  It would be a shame to lose a lens when a filter can be as little as $5.00.  I have seen no significant effect on the quality of the images.  But then again, I am not shooting professionaly. 

As soon as I took off my 'protective' filters, my photos were brighter, a lot sharper, and much more predictible.

The front element of a $1000-2000 is guaranteed to be tougher and harder than any $100 or so filter. That's why when you drop your lens, your filter breaks, and your front element doesn't. 

I just use a circular polarizer fron time to time for effect, which is what filters are for. Effect.

I believe the whole 'protective filter' thing may have been true many (like 50) years ago, but with today's glass and coating technologies is completely unnecessary. 

Man up, and shoot naked! :)

I say if you want cake, eat cake. If you want pie, eat pie. The only right answer answer is the answer you think is right. For every story of how a filter saved a lens, there is a story of a filter causing damge, and vice versa. I personally use a high qaulity filter on my nikon 24-120 f4, but its the only lens that has one. My 50mm 1.8, 60mm macro 2.8, 70-200 2.8 all go filterless. No special reason, just have had better things to spend money on. I have personally found that while a filter makes it easier on cleaning and offers some protection, I can do far more by using my neckstrap, not putting my camera in bad places, being careful with long lenses, respecting my equipment and being responsible, than a filter could ever hope to do.

On the night from 24 - 25th August, the same day your article was published, I was making some night photography pictures and on of the tripod legs all of a sudden collapsed under the weight of D700 + 24-70mm and SB-900. I had Protector filter on the lens. Filter was completely destroyed as camera fell directly with lenses on the rock. 

Expenses - Thank God only 100€.... From that moment on I never take my filter and neither the lens hood (I have it on also in the night)... 

I have UV filters on all of my lenses. If for no other reason than not having to worry too much. For instance,Xg I often don't put lens caps straight back on my lenses whilst on the move. Sometimes I change lenses a lot. If I didn't have lens filters on it would slow me down. I do find I get more lens flare but that's the trade off.

Saved my 18-55 from breaking down to pieces!

I have UV filters on all my lens - I point you to my blog post below as evidence of why I'm glad I did... Lens survived to see another day.

http://driftvisuals.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/introduction/

Most of the examples of how the filter saved damage to the expensive lens, show damage to the filter ring, thus saving the lens thread from damage.

Maybe we should remove the glass from the filter and just use the ring for protection?

I always use a UV filter on my lens. I just hate the idea of leaving an expensive lens unprotected from scratches, dust, water droplets, figerprints, and accidents. I'd rather replace a cheap UV filter every once in a while.

Some years ago on a new lens (nikon 18-105VR) I was thinking to buy a filter later but in the first day I used it, I hit a wall causing a small scratch in the middle of the lens.
Now I use protection filters (Hoya HD Protector) fixed on all my lenses except the Nikon 12-24f2.8 which can't hold filters, and the Nikon 50f1.8 which have the front lens away from the front of the barrel. While I'm convinced that a filter could degrade the image quality, I can't risk to damage a 1500/2000 USD lens for a simply mistake.

just experiment with different uv filters to find one that you like.

at $25 on eBay for a good used Promaster multicoated UV filter vs $200+ for a good used lens or $2500 for a new one how is this even a debate?