The title of your thread, and the question in your post are actually two completely separate issues.

The "is it worth protecting the front of the lens with a filter" question has been discussed at great length as Martin points out.

However, only you can answer the question in your thread title, and to do so is very easy:

Take some pictures of the same things, in identical conditions, with and without.

If you can tell the difference, and you prefer the ones without, then yes. If not, or you don't, then no.

Fantastic idea.

Despite this thread, I note the following from the Pentax User Newsletter received today:

"We now have in stock a cheaper alternative to the Pentax Remote Controls and Cable Switches. We have tested these in the PU office and they do the same job as the Pentax versions."

Clearly the wireless one does not do the same job.

This is shoddy, in my view. It is now a week after the discussion that established that the wireless remote doesn't do bulb, and the only difference in the text is a weaselly change, removing the word "exactly".

Well thank goodness I've been a bit busy these last couple of days. I was on the point of ordering two (one for me, and one as a present), but I didn't quite get round to it.

I would not have been a happy customer. Thanks for clarifying, anyway.

I've got a Pentax one too, but at £8 it might be worth buying a couple.

It would increase the chances of finding one to hand...

I mean, of course, having a backup...

Yep, you totally did. I liked the other one, but I love this. It's got so much going on... the ghostly ethereal nature of the woman, the way the blind cuts up the colour gradation, the way it's colour at the bottom but monochrome at the top; the distant sadness in the eyes, the way the eyes line up with the skyline... wonderful. I'd be very proud if I'd taken this.

Ah, 'new' as in 'never used' as opposed to 'bought recently and not used yet'.

Fair enough.

Wouldn't one wonder about the lubrication in some of these things if they've sat in a cupboard for decades?

You're not wrong.

How on earth can he claim to have one of these new?

Was the shake visible in the photograph, or was the vibration you saw caused by the mirror coming down?