[wim]

It was already a bit at the careless edge: Even if the front element wouldn't cost more than the filter, there's labor costs, V.A.T. and shipping, instead of just screwing a filter on the lens.

But still, it's worth to point out: Filters only protect against small particles, add two extra surfaces and eventually also scratch the front lens when something cracks the filter. Which will happen more likely with a large lens I'm not used to use (I speak for me).

To me, the lens hood matters much more than a filter - I'm not travelling in sandstorms, do lots of pictures in the rain or close to sea waves. Big filter sizes are (to me) fake protection, like using a paper hat instead of a bicycle helmet. And I'm not very sensitive to a little scratch in the front lens - usually that will not affect my pictures. So, I keep my opinion that a filter doesn't reduce the risk enough to justify the costs - it's like gear insurance which annually costs as much as I can easily save to buy a replacement, plus the insurance company won't make it easy to get the money.

Considering my own experiences, and that of a friend of mine who runs a camera store, I don;t agree.

A filter does protect the front lens for bumps and other stuff indeed. My friend regularly gets people coming into the store with damage to the lens or filter. When the lens has no filter, lens hood or not, it invariably has to be sent to the manufacturer to get repaired, which with the sub 500 € lenses generally is not worth the trouble, as it is cheaper to buy a good second hand lens. A filter not only protects the lens from a lot of debris floating/flying around, quite often it is also the seal required to weatherproof a lens, and the actual ring makes the lens mechanically stronger, so it can't bend, dent or buckle so easily. He has yet to see a front lens damaged by shards of glass from a broken filter in the 30+ years he has been in business.

A lens may still get damaged because of an impact, even when sporting a filter, but generally speaking that tends to be damage to the focusing mechanism etc., not to the optics per se, in about 20% of the cases. However, he reckons it would have been worse in most cases without a filter.

There is just one caveat: you need to use a good, multi-coated filter. A sensor reflects about 40% to 60% of the light, vs 2% to 3% from film back in the analog days, and especially when shooting in more complex light conditions, reflections and ghosting can actually destroy an image completely due to reflections of the inside of a cheaper, single coated or even one sided coated filter. In short, only buy the best multi-coated filter you can afford, clear or uv/haze. Speaking from experience here as well.

HTH, kind regards, Wim