the filter debate
In general terms, the more money spent on a (clear or UV) protective filter, the less degradation (there should be) to the light before it reaches the sensor. But no matter how much you spend, physics cannot be cheated, and the native optics of the lens will be, to some extent, degraded. Generally, the more budget-friendly the filter, the worse the degradation. For this reason there's a long-standing debate in the photographic community as to whether one should use protective filters at all. Afterall, having spent what is often a significant amount of money on some very fine glass designed to optimise the light gathered by the sensor; to then degrade that signal-path, is regarded by many as an understandable yet somewhat odious notion.
hoods are dual purpose
A lens hood's primary role is to protect the front element from indirect harsh light sources (glare) which can cause images to look washed-out or cause flaring. They also protect against precipitation (snow, rain, hail) hitting the front element, causing blurring (or less likely, damage in the case of hail).
In addition, a traditional lens push-cap, rather than a pinch-cap, keeps the cap from the glass. When a push cap is secured to a lens hood (rather than the lens itself), there is almost zero possibility that the cap can interact with the front element of the lens.
So, if you have compact, low-profile lens hoods (treated as though part of the lens itself - rather like Panasonic's 7-14mm lens) the requirement for any additional lens protection in the form of a filter is largely negated. The money saved on buying good quality protective filters will almost certainly be more (and possibly quite a lot more) than the cost of the MASSA Lens Hood & Push Cap.
These lens hoods and lens hood caps not only ensure images aren't spoiled from wash-out or flaring, but physically protect the front element, allowing users to abandon their protective filters and get the most from their pricey glass.
