[redeleon]

I have a K7, I got it as a body only
I'm planning to buy 18-55 and the 50-200 DA lenses or other lenses.

I do outdoor photography as well as studios.

I do have a question, should I really have to go through WR?
I understand that 18-55mm WR is $120 used
and the DA II is around $60

its a very big difference in terms of cost.

I know even non WR lenses can withstand some rain,
and though it is WR its not really weather proof.

my budget is very limited,
so the DA* lenses are way out of this.

thanks.

[Ash]

If you're thinking that at any time your gear will be subjected to sprinkles of rain/water/fluid of any kind, WR is a cheap and easy insurance policy.

I wouldn't skimp on $60 for the difference in getting the WR kit lens given the added protection it will give. Also consider getting the WR version of the 50-200 if you're that way inclined.

[future_retro]

I know even non WR lenses can withstand some rain,
and though it is WR its not really weather proof.
thanks.

I definitely have to disagree, I've used only my K7 and the WR lenses for the past two months, and have ran it under a faucet, stood in the pouring rain at Yankee stadium waiting to see if the game would be called off and I can definitely say that the lenses and the body together are weatherproof

While it can't be submerged, like I said I've ran it under a faucet with no damage, when I told people it was water resistant I would even reach for the closest source of liquid, give it a little spill and watch it trickle down the prism housing and all over the lens mount

Even this summer [yes, summer] while snowboarding at timberline I took a nasty fall, and the K7 hit the snow (after probably a 3-4 foot fall), made itself a little cove and sat there in the melting slush (with the battery door directly touching the snow mind you) for good 80-120 seconds while I unstrapped and scampered back up to the scene of the crime (because when you fall, you fall down! )

WR is amazing! and incredibly effective It's going to be so hard going back to a camera that doesn't have it

don't forget that WR lenses also are another weapon in the fight against the ultimate enemy - dust

[redeleon]

I definitely have to disagree, I've used only my K7 and the WR lenses for the past two months, and have ran it under a faucet, stood in the pouring rain at Yankee stadium waiting to see if the game would be called off and I can definitely say that the lenses and the body together are weatherproof

While it can't be submerged, like I said I've ran it under a faucet with no damage, when I told people it was water resistant I would even reach for the closest source of liquid, give it a little spill and watch it trickle down the prism housing and all over the lens mount

Even this summer [yes, summer] while snowboarding at timberline I took a nasty fall, and the K7 hit the snow (after probably a 3-4 foot fall), made itself a little cove and sat there in the melting slush (with the battery door directly touching the snow mind you) for good 80-120 seconds while I unstrapped and scampered back up to the scene of the crime (because when you fall, you fall down! )

WR is amazing! and incredibly effective It's going to be so hard going back to a camera that doesn't have it

don't forget that WR lenses also are another weapon in the fight against the ultimate enemy - dust

that said how resistant is the DA - WR

thanks for your story, really had me sold on the WR

[hangu]

How often do you take photos in extreme conditions or in the rain? I use the K-x and MF lenses that are the exact opposite of WR but I haven't had the need for WR even once so far *knocks on wood*. Then again, I'm not into extreme sports and it's rare that I'll need my camera in the rain.

I remember Adam had a link to the WR 18-55 brand new for $100. I think it'll be good to have the 18-55WR since it is so inexpensive. If you find yourself needing the WR often, then get the 55-200 WR, if not, save the money.

This is a case where we just have different needs. Just ask yourself.

[future_retro]

that said how resistant is the DA - WR

Are you asking about the DA WR lenses specifically? I had the DA 18-55 WR and DA 50-200 WR and those two are what my experience was based on

the 18-55 was the mountain and the 50-200 was the Yankee game, both passed the faucet

[axl]

Well, I used old K100D and old original DA18-55 in drizzle and fog, and light rain and the kit survived just fine...If you have common sense and take little bit of care you'll be fine IMO...

[wizofoz]

I agree with Ash, $60 is good insurance. Also, isn't the version II lens and improved model? This is a very good 'kit lens' which I use quite a lot.

[Pentaxor]

if you hate the rain, then the obvious answer is NO.

[bdery]

It depends on your shooting style. My main walkaround lens is the Sigma 17-70 but I also own the WR kit. I love hiking, camping, snowshoeing, going to the beach, etc. In all those situations, I bring the WR kit and know I can rely on it. When there's little or no risk, I use the Sigma.

It's clear that the WR does make a difference in some situations. It's your call to decide if you put yourself in those situations or not.

[future_retro]

Here some pictures from the day at Yankee stadium, I wish I had more substantial evidence of the weatherproofing but my K7 is out the door and this is about all I have, these were the conditions that day, not just a slight drizzle but a constant heavy rain, and I was able to stand out in it for hours (ok maybe an hour) with the naked K7 and DA 50-200 WR, no damage. Heck I didn't even bring a bag, the need not to have a bag in inclement weather is reason enough for me to go WR

[jjdgti]

I like those pictures. WR is a very nice thing to have.

[future_retro]

I'm pretty adamantly enthusiastic about Pentax's WR because it was the reason I got the K7 in first place, I really didn't need it for anything else

also I think the the WR is the best thing about the K7, it's performance in other areas is arguably worse than the Kx, but the WR is amazing, I've spoken to a few Canon owners, the 50d and 7d mostly and when I tell them I can run my sealed camera under a faucet they look at me in horror, it seems (and I've also heard from other places) that the K7's sealing is more up to the code of the 1D and better than other cameras at the price

[paulelescoces]

While I believe my experience is certainly the exception I would be concerned about running the WR lenses under running water... my 16-50 has died due too "oxidation due to water leakage" while mounted to a K20D in Moderate/Heavy Rain for a short time. Have a thread where I explain the details and even have some internal lens photos.

[future_retro]

While I believe my experience is certainly the exception I would be concerned about running the WR lenses under running water... my 16-50 has died due too "oxidation due to water leakage" while mounted to a K20D in Moderate/Heavy Rain for a short time. Have a thread where I explain the details and even have some internal lens photos.

I have read on this forum, more than once, that the DA WR sealing is more robust than the DA* lenses

Even though that sounds a bit ridiculous, I know I didn't make up that I read it, weather it's true or not, I have no clue