Save some moeny and just get the lens hood... It does a better job protecting the lens than any filter possibly can, and will never cause any issues in images, the way a filter can.
That Hoya HMC filter is supposed to be a good one, if you must... I'm a little suspicious though because that seems like an unusually low price for it.
Any added glass in front of a lens that the light has to pass through is going to have some negative effect on every image made with it. High quality, multi-coated filters might cost only very little IQ, nearly imperceptible in most situations. But in more extreme lighting situations, such as strong light sources in the image, any filter will cause additonal flare, reduce contrast and color saturation. Worst case, besides flare, cheap filters can cause overall softeness, amp up chromatic aberrations and even mess with AF.
Never one of mine thankfully, but over the years I've seen broken filters actually damage lenses when the shards of glass were driven into the front element... So I question their value for protection, anyway. Would the lens have fared better without the filter? Who knows... there is no way to test it with any validity. It's a pretty good bet, though, that a rigid lens hood would have prevented damage to both the lens and the filter. In fact, a lens hood helps reduce any IQ effects from a filter, too... so it's even more important to use a hood, when using any filter.
Enjoy the lens! I've been using one for years (filterless virtually all the time... but always with the hood, as is the case with all my lenses).
P.S. IMO, the same applies to the 18-55 and 50/1.8. In fact, I think the 50/1.8 has a fairly well recessed front element, sort of like a built in lens hood, so an additional hood might not be necessary for that particular lens (unless a filter is fitted to it). I dunno about the 18-55. But, another consideration, both those lenses can be replaced for little more than the cost of the filter... so is it worth it?