There's no need for UV protection, so you could also use a clear protective filter instead. But you don't always get what you pay for...

In testing a $70 Nikon filter was essentially as good as a $225 Leica filter (0.1% difference). And a $10 Chiarro filter was as good as a $40 Tiffen. Based on those tests I replaced my Heliopan protective filter with the Nikon NC.

However, I personally do not use a protective filter unless something is likely to hit the front element... i.e. blowing saltwater, sand, etc. I have not had a lens scratched/scuffed due to not using one in over 20 yrs since I switched to digital (I did use UV filters with film). And I am hard on my gear; I have gear insurance because I use it... Last March I had a Z9 lens mount, viewfinder, and front/rear cases replaced due to impact damage. The lens was fine other than a scar to the hood, and the lens hood hit first.

Still, other than the testing linked to above, most evidence of the benefits/negatives to using a protective filter is anecdotal. However, there is more evidence of a bad filter definitively adversely affecting images in certain situations... but not much correlation as to what to avoid in particular (other than very cheap).

So, if you choose to use one, about the only thing you can do is try it and see...

There's no need for UV protection, so you could also use a clear protective filter instead. But you don't always get what you pay for...

In testing a $70 Nikon filter was essentially as good as a $225 Leica filter (0.1% difference). And a $10 Chiarro filter was as good as a $40 Tiffen. Based on those tests I replaced my Heliopan protective filter with the Nikon NC.

However, I personally do not use a protective filter unless something is likely to hit the front element... i.e. blowing saltwater, sand, etc. I have not had a lens scratched/scuffed due to not using one in over 20 yrs since I switched to digital (I did use UV filters with film). And I am hard on my gear; I have gear insurance because I use it... Last March I had a Z9 lens mount, viewfinder, and front/rear cases replaced due to impact damage. The lens was fine other than a scar to the hood, and the lens hood hit first.

Still, other than the testing linked to above, most evidence of the benefits/negatives to using a protective filter is anecdotal. However, there is more evidence of a bad filter definitively adversely affecting images in certain situations... but not much correlation as to what to avoid in particular (other than very cheap).

So, if you choose to use one, about the only thing you can do is try it and see... or buy one of the ones that tested highly.

There's no need for UV protection, so you could also use a clear protective filter instead. But you don't always get what you pay for...

In testing a $70 Nikon filter was essentially as good as a $225 Leica filter (0.1% difference). And a $10 Chiarro filter was as good as a $40 Tiffen. Based on those tests I replaced my Heliopan protective filter with the Nikon NC.

However, I personally do not use a protective filter unless something is likely to hit the front element... i.e. blowing saltwater, sand, etc. I have not had a lens scratched/scuffed due to not using one in over 20 yrs since I switched to digital (I did use UV filters with film). And I am hard on my gear; I have gear insurance because I use it... Last March I had a Z9 lens mount, viewfinder, and front/rear cases replaced due to impact damage. The lens was fine other than a scar to the hood, and the lens hood hit first.

Still, other than the testing linked to above, most evidence of the benefits/negatives to using a protective filter is anecdotal. However, there is more evidence of a bad filter definitively adversely affecting images in certain situations... but not much correlation as to what to avoid in particular (other than very cheap).

There's no need for UV protection, so you could also use a clear protective filter instead. But you don't always get what you pay for...

In testing a $70 Nikon filter was essentially as good as a $225 Leica filter (0.1% difference). And a $10 Chiarro filter was as good as a $40 Tiffen. Based on those tests I replaced my Heliopan protective filter with the Nikon NC.

However, I personally do not use a protective filter unless something is likely to hit the front element... i.e. blowing saltwater, sand, etc. I have not had a lens scratched/scuffed due to not using one in over 20 yrs since I switched to digital (I did use UV filters with film). And I am hard on my gear; I have gear insurance because I use it... Last March I had a Z9 lens mount, viewfinder, and front/rear cases replaced due to impact damage. The lens was fine other than a scar to the hood, and the lens hood hit first.

Still, other than the testing linked to above, most evidence of the benefits/negatives to using a protective filter is anecdotal. However, there is more evidence of a bad filter definitively adversely affecting images in certain situations... but not much correlation as to what to avoid in particular (other than very cheap).

So, if you choose to use one, about the only thing you can do is try it and see...