[JJ_SO]

I reckon it's a question of priorities and of course, also "lesson learnt" experiences. I had a couple of different experiences when I thought, the filter now would be broken, too - or only the filter would be broken. I really should work on my struggle with gravity and it's effect on lenses :/ Both ways can be a bit of a risk. As Roger also puts out: Although there's nearly no effect for a scratched front element to the pictures, there certainly is one when it comes to resale value.

[wim]

I reckon it's a question of priorities and of course, also "lesson learnt" experiences. I had a couple of different experiences when I thought, the filter now would be broken, too - or only the filter would be broken. I really should work on my struggle with gravity and it's effect on lenses :/ Both ways can be a bit of a risk. As Roger also puts out: Although there's nearly no effect for a scratched front element to the pictures, there certainly is one when it comes to resale value.

Yes, for sure. But to be very honest, as long as you treat your lenses carefully, keep the boxes, etc., resale value is higher than for those lenses which no longer look as new and have no boxes anymore. That does include scratches indeed, micro or otherwise . Using filters means you don't have to clean the front lens, so the chance of micro scratches is also absolutely minimal.

Kind regards, Wim

[MatjazO]

With film cameras, I used UV filter on every lens. In 20 years, once I did have the case when it broke. Reason was not the fall, the filter itself broke inside the bag while neither barrel nor glass got damaged.

In digital age, I stopped using them. Besides need for UV filtering is gone, coating on lenses became better and almost fullproof. Out of 12 lenses, one got damaged - it was filter thread crack on Pentax 12-24/4 when camera took a fall with the tripod. Apart from broken hood and cosmetic damage, it remained fine and sharpest wideangle I had in Pentax system. 

I consider myself to be average on how I take care of equipment, yet glass is fine on all lenses in my bags. Financially, I would loose more by buying 12 quality filters instead of having lost a hundred or so on one slightly damaged lens.

[davidmanze]

And as to front light conditions: did you actually test that?

My own test showed that with a really good filter transparency is even better.

Every filter is worse optically than no filter on the front of a lens!..............see here: Lenstips brand comparison.

https://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html


Actually there are many fake filters about these days on line, I tried a couple of Hoya multi coated filters which were selling at around 10 euros from Amazon, my thinking being that I could return them if necessary. The printing on the filter ring did look fake, but they were certainly multi coated and from the testing I did they came out as good filters with no real impact on the images beyond the expected....however, at standard and wide angle focal lengths.

The IQ impact on longer focal lengths is greater, when you shopping for 95mm filters a pop that cost more than the mm diameter. For example, I tried a filter on the Pentax FA* 300mm F4.5......even with a know Hoya HMC filter sharpness was significantly lower to the point of a kit lens.

Now I only use a filter on the Sigma 150 macro.....because I have one and because I poke it all sorts of "grotty" macro subjects!
....................................................................................................................................................................................................

OT. Here's a recent "stacking" image that I made from 40 images using just a wooden board and a LED macro ring on my Flickr page: (the every first image)


https://www.flickr.com/photos/124690178@N08/