[ravenorxs]

I own a K-5ii which is weather resistant. However none of my lenses (save for my kit 18-135mm which I don't use) are weather resistant.

If I use the WR body and non-WR lens combo, what degree of rain can my lens withstand?

Does it mean no rain should touch the lens at all or is some exposure to light drizzle for a few seconds during shots okay as long as there is a hood/uv filter?

**EDIT: speaking of which, if my body is WR but my lens isn't, would it be prudent to cut a hole in a zip-lock bag and put it around my lens?
I'm going to Portland this weekend and there's some rain in the forecast.

[Adam]

**EDIT: speaking of which, if my body is WR but my lens isn't, would it be prudent to cut a hole in a zip-lock bag and put it around my lens?

Yes that's a good idea. You should avoid getting your lenses wet as moisture can easily get in. A few drops wiped away quickly probably won't hurt, but you never know.

[skunktail]

You should avoid getting your lenses wet as moisture can easily get in. A few drops wiped away quickly probably won't hurt, but you never know.

Adam gives good advice here. Even weather resistant gear has it's limitations when things get wet.

That said, the better built lenses suffer less when pushed beyond their limits.
see the tamron 70-200 in this picture which still works fine.
(Although, I admit this photo is well beyond the point of good sense and I don't recommend anyone do this to their lenses.)

[ravenorxs]

Thank you for the replies.

I don't intend to use my camera in a roaring downpour. I'm mainly looking for confirmation that a non-WR lens when used during a drizzle would not kill the lens so long as it was exposed only a quick few seconds while under protection of clothing/zip-lock bag etc etc. Thanks!

[rfg]

Thank you for the replies.

I don't intend to use my camera in a roaring downpour. I'm mainly looking for confirmation that a non-WR lens when used during a drizzle would not kill the lens so long as it was exposed only a quick few seconds while under protection of clothing/zip-lock bag etc etc. Thanks!

It's not just the lens you need to worry about: WR lenses have an o-ring which makes a water tight seal to the body. Without that it would be possible for water to enter the mirror box. You'd have to be unlucky but still ...

[DSims]

That said, the better built lenses suffer less when pushed beyond their limits.
see the tamron 70-200 in this picture which still works fine.
(Although, I admit this photo is well beyond the point of good sense and I don't recommend anyone do this to their lenses.)

That's exactly what I do with my DA*50-135! In fact, that's what I thought you were using there, at first - except I kept thinking "that hood isn't long enough - my hood is long enough to really keep the rain out!".

I love it when someone else says to me "you should be careful with your camera" and I just say "it's OK, but thanks for your concern!"

[skunktail]

In my defence, it wasn't raining that hard when I started

This was actually on a photo safari in Tasmania. I'd spent all morning talking up the WR capabilities of pentax cameras.
After that, I couldn't really go running for shelter at the first sign of rain.

I was praying like mad nothing would go wrong and in this case I got lucky.

[stevebrot]

I own no WR lenses and regularly shoot in all seasons here in the Portland area. I basically use the same rules for common sense that I have used with film era cameras for the last couple of decades. That being to avoid direct exposure to splash, rain, or spray as much as possible. An umbrella and an assistant is good. Rain garments with a generous cut are also good.


Steve

[todd]

I recently found myself at a large misty waterfall with no WR lenses and without any decent protection... I went ahead (could not resist) and used my nice DA and FA limited lenses to take shots despite there being enough mist that I couldn't keep the front elements dry when mounted and shooting. I had to wipe after every shot and even that wasn't enough... When I was done I set them all in the sun and dried them off gently and everything seems fine since then...

[calsan]

"Moisture is the essence of wetness." Zoolander.

I think it also depends on the type of 'wetness'. Any wetness containing salt (shooting on a boat) or spilt sugary drinks are far worse than pure Aitch-Two-Oh.

[Tom777]

I own a K-5ii which is weather resistant. However none of my lenses (save for my kit 18-135mm which I don't use) are weather resistant.

If I use the WR body and non-WR lens combo, what degree of rain can my lens withstand?

Does it mean no rain should touch the lens at all or is some exposure to light drizzle for a few seconds during shots okay as long as there is a hood/uv filter?

**EDIT: speaking of which, if my body is WR but my lens isn't, would it be prudent to cut a hole in a zip-lock bag and put it around my lens?
I'm going to Portland this weekend and there's some rain in the forecast.

Look here

You Tube

You Tube

water and dust test
Tom G

[Just1MoreDave]

You can't really put any number on the rain or snow, and all lenses are different. The only answer is some common sense, some luck.

[Tom777]

You can't really put any number on the rain or snow, and all lenses are different. The only answer is some common sense, some luck.

Yes Dave I agree common sense I would not do what that soldier boy done with my new camera no way?????????????
Tom G

[DSims]

Yes Dave I agree common sense I would not do what that soldier boy done with my new camera no way?????????????
Tom G

If you need the shot ...



isn't that why you bought the camera?

[Lowell Goudge]

I would go back to my original position on WR lenses and cameras.

Forget they are WR. Protect them as you would have done with any film SLR and rely on the WR capabilities as insurance if your protection fails

Although I treat my sigma 70-200/2.8 as skunktail treats his lens