I really haven't any idea how I should respond to you, Dimitri - or if I even should bother. Nonetheless, let's play along...
On July 23rd, 2010 I took my Nikon D60 and Nikon 18-200 VR2 lens with me on a fishing trip with my friend RJ. We took his 17' boat out off the coast of Cape Cod. Conditions were ideal, with just barely a touch of wind and a gentle roll to the water.
By the time we were headed back, however, we were racing against the wind and a bitter ocean with 20-25mph gusts. After three hours of fighting stripers and blues in the rip, I was tired and forgot where I had set the lens cap, which we didn't find until we cleaned out the boat. The lens and the camera both got a pretty good dose of spray from not only the chop of the water but also the pounding we were taking trying to race back to the docks. I was holding the camera while he was driving, and was in front of the control pod. I didn't bother to clean the camera or lens when we got back because the fishing trip was NOT the goal of my visit, rather an added bonus to the knifemaking lessons I had with him. RJ's a professional knifemaker, and I'm an amateur that he was kind enough to share his expertise with. I didn't get around to cleaning the camera until I was home, three days later. The ONLY damage that was evident was at the bayonet mount, where the salt spray had started to corrode it. A delicate wiping with Flitz metal polish removed most of the corrosion, but there are spots of pitting still visible.
There is NO damage to the glass of the lens. The only thing I used to clean the salt spots from it was a microfiber cleaning cloth damped with distilled water.
This is so far off the original topic I'm almost embarrassed to have responded to it, and wouldn't normally bother trying to counter someone in such desperate need of attention, but Dimitri's posts accused me of lying, and that isn't something I'm willing to accept, even from an internet troll.
Your photos add nothing to defend or retort the original post, for the record, Dimitri. In order to prove that there is no loss through a filter, you first need to have a control image of the same subject without a filter. Asking others to point out changes in the image without seeing what it looks like without does NOTHING to prove that there aren't any. Remedial scientific principle. But what do I know, right? How to call it, "incompetency"?