Weather Resistant Specs: DA* x DA WR

BBear · 07-08-2009, 12:59 PM

Okay guys,

I am going to the desert end of next month, and I am thinking about buying the new DA WR lens to match my K10D.

But as I went to the Pentax Imaging website to check weights (i was concerned about them being heavy) I noticed the following:

DA* 16-50: The tightly sealed, weather-resistant and dust-resistant construction enhances durability for use in both rainy and dusty conditions, making the DA Star 16-50mm lens a perfect companion for the weather-resistant PENTAX DSLR bodies.

DA 18-55 WR: Weather-resistant to handle damp, inclement conditions.

Well, it seems to me that the levels of WR for these lenses are totally different. Could someone confirm if this is accurate? And if so, is it worthy to buy the new 18-55 WR for a week long trip in the middle of the desert??

Thanks in advance,

BB

Pentaxor · 07-08-2009, 06:56 PM

if you are only after the WR feature, then the 200 dollar 18-55 lens would be the way to go. it has nice optics as well. I don't think that there is a difference in weather tolerance in both lenses. except that the DA* has SDM and 2.8 opening.

don't worry about the weight of the WR kit lens. it is very light and I guarantee it.

*pxpaulx* · 07-08-2009, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by BBear

Okay guys,

I am going to the desert end of next month, and I am thinking about buying the new DA WR lens to match my K10D.

But as I went to the Pentax Imaging website to check weights (i was concerned about them being heavy) I noticed the following:

DA* 16-50: The tightly sealed, weather-resistant and dust-resistant construction enhances durability for use in both rainy and dusty conditions, making the DA Star 16-50mm lens a perfect companion for the weather-resistant PENTAX DSLR bodies.

DA 18-55 WR: Weather-resistant to handle damp, inclement conditions.

Well, it seems to me that the levels of WR for these lenses are totally different. Could someone confirm if this is accurate? And if so, is it worthy to buy the new 18-55 WR for a week long trip in the middle of the desert??

Thanks in advance,

BB

I'm curious to know as well. I think we will simply have to wait for some good user reviews. I just got the 50-135 myself; also purchased the 12-24 in the last month. It overlaps with most of my usage of the 16-45, so I am thinking about selling the 16-45 (that will be a tough decision though!) and buying the 18-55 WR to compliment the 50-135 in less than ideal conditions. I am adopting wait-and-see for this one.

BBear · 07-09-2009, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by Pentaxor

I don't think that there is a difference in weather tolerance in both lenses.

When I first read about the new WR kit lenses, i assumed they'd have the same level of WR as the DA*... but after reading the description on their website, it very much seems like they are not!

**Peter Zack** · 07-09-2009, 08:08 AM

Not having seen either taken apart, I wouldn't make a definitive statement on one being better than the other.

But I own a DA* 16-50mm and can clearly say it can take just about anything. I shot 3 weddings in the rain this past 2 weeks and the lens worked (and still does) perfectly. I had the WR kit lens in my hands yesterday. It feels tighter than the old one and the rear end of the lens has the same (red) gasket. So your camera body should be protected from water/dust getting inside the mount the same as a DA* does. As for the lens body itself, hard to know for sure. It's tighter and I would bet will survive fine but that's a guess. Get 2 and see what the trip is like. If they both survive, I'll buy one from you as a backup. (no kidding)

Pentaxor · 07-09-2009, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by Peter Zack

Not having seen either taken apart, I wouldn't make a definitive statement on one being better than the other.

But I own a DA* 16-50mm and can clearly say it can take just about anything. I shot 3 weddings in the rain this past 2 weeks and the lens worked (and still does) perfectly. I had the WR kit lens in my hands yesterday. It feels tighter than the old one and the rear end of the lens has the same (red) gasket. So your camera body should be protected from water/dust getting inside the mount the same as a DA* does. As for the lens body itself, hard to know for sure. It's tighter and I would bet will survive fine but that's a guess. Get 2 and see what the trip is like. If they both survive, I'll buy one from you as a backup. (no kidding)

hi Peter, why don't you just buy a new one instead? anyway, if the OP believes that the WR kit lens is far more weather tolerant, wouldn't that be great? I do somehow inclined in buying a WR kit lens, an 18-55 probably. but not anytime soon. I just love my K-7 right now that I don't want a single drop of rain to fall on it nor have the time to go on the beach. maybe some other time.

*deadwolfbones* · 07-09-2009, 10:34 AM

My guess is that they're just trying to upsell the DA* lens, and that they both have the same level of sealing. But who can say for sure, at least until the WR kit lenses are out and tested in some nasty weather?

BBear · 07-23-2009, 12:49 PM

Any more info on these new DA WR ?

*Jonson PL* · 07-23-2009, 01:00 PM

I doubt the kit lenses are built to the same tight tolerances as the DA stars. And the info from Pentax seems to indicate the same.
But for a trip to the desert, they just might do.

Jungle in rainy season, I would go DA*

*pxpaulx* · 07-23-2009, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by BBear

Any more info on these new DA WR ?

Sure is quiet on this front. On the topic of price though, adorama has the 18-55 wr with $20 off at the moment, in stock and free shipping.

I think I am going to replace my 16-45 with this lens. Having the 12-24 covers probably 80% of the focal range usage of the 16-45 (for me personally, based on a recent exposure plot run I did before deciding on the 12-24).

I would like a WR complement to my new 50-135 but don't feel like going for the 16-50 (dont really feel a need for a fast lens in this range). That is a good price at the moment!

axl · 07-23-2009, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by pxpaulx

Sure is quiet on this front. On the topic of price though, adorama has the 18-55 wr with $20 off at the moment, in stock and free shipping.

I think I am going to replace my 16-45 with this lens. Having the 12-24 covers probably 80% of the focal range usage of the 16-45 (for me personally, based on a recent exposure plot run I did before deciding on the 12-24).

I would like a WR complement to my new 50-135 but don't feel like going for the 16-50 (dont really feel a need for a fast lens in this range). That is a good price at the moment!

Now you've got me thinking....
I'm about to go to Egypt in August, and I'm not too keen on taking my primes. And since I have 24/2.8, 31ltd, 40ltd and F50/1.7 I'm not too keen on getting DA*16-50 but the new WR kit may be the answer I was waiting for...
good thinking there, thanks

BR
Peter

*pxpaulx* · 07-24-2009, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by axl

Now you've got me thinking....
I'm about to go to Egypt in August, and I'm not too keen on taking my primes. And since I have 24/2.8, 31ltd, 40ltd and F50/1.7 I'm not too keen on getting DA*16-50 but the new WR kit may be the answer I was waiting for...
good thinking there, thanks

BR
Peter

Hope I don't put your carry-on over the weight limit, haha.

There is a thread over at dpreview discussing the weather-sealed-ness of the new sealed kits, by those accounts they will be just fine in most any inclement weather I would care to be outside for. I am ordering this lens this afternoon.

axl · 07-24-2009, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by pxpaulx

Hope I don't put your carry-on over the weight limit, haha.

There is a thread over at dpreview discussing the weather-sealed-ness of the new sealed kits, by those accounts they will be just fine in most any inclement weather I would care to be outside for. I am ordering this lens this afternoon.

let me know what you think of it when you'll get some chance to put it through it's paces please.

thanks

BBear · 07-24-2009, 05:11 PM

i went over DPReview and it seems like the WR is more like a splah-resistant than a real weather-sealed.

In any case, here is my dilemma:

* buy 18-55 WR for $200, less than 200gr and not really fast and with chances of NOT surviving the trip to the desert

* rent the DA* 16-50 for $100, f/2.8, weather sealed, but 600gr and paying rent.

*pxpaulx* · 07-24-2009, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by BBear

i went over DPReview and it seems like the WR is more like a splah-resistant than a real weather-sealed.

I'm guessing you read the thread where someone was discussing the 16-50, 16-45 and new 18-55 wr (the same thread that has somehow devolved into a comparison of a 16-50 and 18-250@18mm; I'm surprised there has been so little discussion of the new wr lenses; are they not basically the k7 kit lenses?). I digress.

Did you miss the post where the guy left his camera (Cant remember the model) with the new 18-55 wr on his friends apartment rooftop during an afternoon of rain? that was convincing enough for me, most everyone else's posts in that thread were pure speculation and semantic arguments over what pentax means by weather resistant as opposed to sealed (really, pentax should be the ones to end this discussion). As excited as I am to get the lens (and will post about it when I do), in the back of my mind I am still envisioning a rubber ring around the front zoom section, squeegee-ing the water off as it moves in and out.

I Will provide a hands on review. I Will NOT be the one to put the lens to its limits though (no shower scenes, steamy or otherwise, if you know what I mean, haha).