[DogLover]

I keep a cheap UV filer on most of my lenses at all times. If I'm somewhere where I think the protection is warranted, I leave it on when I take of the lens cover. When I want to take a shot where I'm in control of the situation I unscrew the filter with the cover attached. Twice I've been knocked into while in busy urban centers and had my camera hit the pavement lens-first and both times the cheap filter took the brunt of the impact, distorting the rim and shattering the glass, but leaving my lens unscathed.

Wow, that's happened to you twice? More than an argument for the use of a filter, I'd say this brings to mind other questions, such as:

1. Are you maybe bringing out your camera at times that you shouldn't?
2. How loose of a grip do you have on the camera? Neck strap might be in order.
3. Just how rude are the people of Seattle?

Seriously, though, if I had to take photos knowing that every one of them would be shot through a cheap filter, I just wouldn't bother.

[VisualDarkness]

Wow, that's happened to you twice? More than an argument for the use of a filter, I'd say this brings to mind other questions, such as:

1. Are you maybe bringing out your camera at times that you shouldn't?
2. How loose of a grip do you have on the camera? Neck strap might be in order.
3. Just how rude are the people of Seattle?

Seriously, though, if I had to take photos knowing that every one of them would be shot through a cheap filter, I just wouldn't bother.

So I wasn't the only one who thought about nr3!
I usually go around slightly tossing around with my cameras when I'm bored when out shooting, and even I haven't dropped one yet. A hood is a much better protection than a filter though in case of a fall.

Well, running around with Kurt Kobain might have have been dangerous:

You Tube

You Tube

[Don Martin]

Wow, that's happened to you twice? More than an argument for the use of a filter, I'd say this brings to mind other questions, such as:

1. Are you maybe bringing out your camera at times that you shouldn't?
2. How loose of a grip do you have on the camera? Neck strap might be in order.
3. Just how rude are the people of Seattle?

Seriously, though, if I had to take photos knowing that every one of them would be shot through a cheap filter, I just wouldn't bother.

Same here, I already managed to destroy 2 UV filters, even with the sunhood attached to the lens. I rather pay for a new filter then for a new lens, so I keep my filters on all the time.

[DogLover]

Well, photography's not the ideal hobby for everyone. Perhaps bowling might be a more suitable pastime. Or rugby.

[kjg48359]

Thanks, I knew that there would be no shortage of opinions. But like everything else, there are now right or wrong answers, just different shades of risk.

[m42man]

As others have said, a filter can only degrade image quality, but all filters are not equal! Image degradation with the right filter will generally be pretty hard to see (even pixel-peeping), and it probably doesn't have to be the most expensive either (but it certainly won't be the cheapest!). Have a look here:

UV filters test - Introduction - Lenstip.com

LensRentals.com - Good Times with Bad Filters

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/124056-impa...uv-filter.html

The last link just shows how much a cheap (or counterfeit!) filter can mangle an image. You won't go far wrong with a Hoya or Marumi filter, but do make sure they're genuine (buy from a reputable dealer), and make sure they're multicoated (flare is probably the biggest bugbear with filters - in fact, you may want to remove the filter for night shots, for this reason).