With the (16-50, and 50-250) kit Nikon has engineered a real winner. It is light, compact, small, ergonometric; and is nearly perfect as a carry around and vacation camera. Images are sharp with great color fidelity. High ISO performance is excellent. Auto focus is quick and accurate. And, maybe best of all, it is FUN and easy to learn. It was never intended to replace my D800, and won’t; but I can use all my Nikon lenses with it and the adapter being offered at discount with the kit. I would be nitpicking to find flaws. In other words I love it.

I don't see how a filter is protecting anything from impact; that thing is so thin, you can practically push your thumb through it - unlike the front element, which is a very thick piece of glass and requires an immense amount of force to crack. The fact that both the lens cap and front element are undamaged while the filter is completely shattered goes to show just how fragile and useless the filter was as a means of protection. If anything, the lens cap was the real hero in this case, not the filter. Obviously, there are situations when a filter can be useful for protection, such as shooting in a sand storm. However, it doesn't really protect from violent knocks to the lens. Caps and hoods do a far superior job.

So, let me make sure I understand your point....

You dropped your lens, the filter broke, the lens cap is ruined and there are glass shards embedded in the front element of the lens requiring it be sent to Nikon for repair and you are sharing this as an example why people SHOULD use a "protection filter"?

It could just as easily be used as a good example why one SHOULD NOT use a protection filter! After all, the lens is still being sent off for repair, so the filter appears to have failed to serve its one and only purpose.

There really is no way to say, one way or another, whether or not a filter offers any protection without truly scientific testing.

So, please purchase a couple dozen of those lenses... fit half of them with protection filters, half without. Now drop them from various heights and landing in various ways on various types of surfaces. Compile the data on how well the lenses survived and give us the statistics.

Of course, this data will only apply to that particular lens... So please repeat these tests with a couple dozen copies of any other lens you'd like to suggest would be "protected" by a filter.

Or just watch Steve's video where he's done some testing with a limited selection of filters and lenses at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds

I've broken several filters over the last 40+ years. Some caps and hoods, too. I've dented a lens or even knocked one hard enough that it would no longer focus, even wore out the focus mechanisms on a few and had some apertures fail... But never significantly damaged the elements of a filterless lens... and have seen more than one lens that was actually damaged by a broken filter.

Sure, I've got "protection" filters for my lenses. They're stored separately in my bag and used in particular situations where they might actually serve a purpose.... out shooting in a sandstorm, shooting at the beach, for example. In other words, not very often. My C-Pols see a whole lot more use. Even though I don't use them very often, I would guess my ND filters even see more use than my "protection" filters.

P.S. Why are you trashing the camera bag? Is it the bag's fault that your dropped it?

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.