This topic has been kicked around many times in the past year, so I thought I'd add a visual to the discussion. For those folks who still are reluctant to use a filter on the front of their lenses, here is a shot of the remains of the filter. This was attached to my 85mm lens that took a direct hit when I dropped my camera bag last night. I cannot pry the lens cap out of the filter and I don't plan to anyway because it's probably full of tiny glass shards. The front element in the lens did not get damaged, but is full of tiny glass shards that I cannot remove with a blower or soft brush. So off to Nikon it went today. The filter is a clear glass filter to avoid any color distortion. I have been a firm believer in the clear glass filters from Nikon for many years since one of my lenses hit the corner of a guard rail and shattered. Even having the filter cap attached did not save the filter.

PS, the camera bag is headed for the trash dump.

I have been using cameras since... 1977 on almost a daily basis.

The only time I broke a lens, it was in a car accident.

I do not use a filter as protection. I do not see the point at all. Filter have their place but not as 'protection'. If anything a good insurance is the best 'filter'. The insurance paid for the 180mm fixed onto my RB67.

Also there is one guy who made tests breaking lenses with and without filter. Results? They were no protection at all as the shocks were able to shift elements inside the lens.

So... to 'protection filters'.

Well,here we go again....it's funny how the myth persists.

Individual anecdotes like the OP's aside, the fact remains that @mas24's comment is generally true (for all but the oldest lenses) and the reason anyone "believes" adding more glass in front of the lens makes sense is thanks to camera stores pushing a highly profitable item (the filter) onto a customer who purchases a far lower profit item (the lens).

Back in the day, local stores (like one I managed in New Orleans in the '70's) knew they had to match the mail order prices of places like 47th St Photo or Willoughby-Peerless, et al. So the $500 lens (which might have had a MSRP of $600) provided only a $20 profit to the store when the price was matched. But that filter sold for $20 had a $10 profit - so of course the push was made to convince the victim, er, customer, that they needed to protect that valuable lens for which they were spending $500!

So nervous nellies the world over have become convinced that clear filters are in some way needed. Well, it's their money. Lens hoods offer protection and are included with the lens anyway, and are cheap to relace on the rare occasion when one bumps into a wall.

The only time it makes sense to use a clear fulter for "protection" is in situations where actual stuff may be sprayed onto the front of the lens, like sea spray (when shooting on a windy day at the beach perhaps) or dirt and mud (when taking shots at the side of a motocross race), etc.

But why I just wasted time writing this is a mysery to me; it's like convincing flat earthers that they are wrong.