Lens Water Sensitivity

**Biff** · 09-24-2010, 09:21 AM

I'm going on a trek next month and have a WR camera body, and would presume to use my WR 18-55, which is a good lens, but I'd prefer to use my 16-45 with the wider angle, constant f4, slightly better quality, etc.

Given most folks generally don't use WR lenses and take reasonable care, but lenses sometimes may get a little wet, but are soon dried off, just how sensitive are they, say to the camera body with all its electronics?

I'd like to travel light during the day and not take multiple lenses, maybe one alternative is to use the 16-45, and keep the 18-55 in the main bag as a backup.

The lens wouldn't be exposed to dunking, just the usual periodic rains in the Andes.

Thanks for any thoughts.

Ratmagiclady · 09-24-2010, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Biff

I'm going on a trek next month and have a WR camera body, and would presume to use my WR 18-55, which is a good lens, but I'd prefer to use my 16-45 with the wider angle, constant f4, slightly better quality, etc.

Given most folks generally don't use WR lenses and take reasonable care, but lenses sometimes may get a little wet, but are soon dried off, just how sensitive are they, say to the camera body with all its electronics?

I'd like to travel light during the day and not take multiple lenses, maybe one alternative is to use the 16-45, and keep the 18-55 in the main bag as a backup.

The lens wouldn't be exposed to dunking, just the usual periodic rains in the Andes.

Thanks for any thoughts.

Sounds like a reasonable plan: I don't know about the WR version, but I have the kit lens II and the weight of it is pretty negligible. I generally think a sealed body pretty much puts me where I'd ordinarily be with a good camera, weatherwise, and just take the usual precautions, but I suspect the WR may actually come in pretty handy there.

hcarvalhoalves · 09-24-2010, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Biff

I'm going on a trek next month and have a WR camera body, and would presume to use my WR 18-55, which is a good lens, but I'd prefer to use my 16-45 with the wider angle, constant f4, slightly better quality, etc.

Given most folks generally don't use WR lenses and take reasonable care, but lenses sometimes may get a little wet, but are soon dried off, just how sensitive are they, say to the camera body with all its electronics?

I'd like to travel light during the day and not take multiple lenses, maybe one alternative is to use the 16-45, and keep the 18-55 in the main bag as a backup.

The lens wouldn't be exposed to dunking, just the usual periodic rains in the Andes.

Thanks for any thoughts.

Depending where and when you're going to the Andes, it rains A LOT, specially around Peru/Bolivia. Rain season is between November - March.

I would recommend using the WR if you're not used to tropical weather.

MRRiley · 09-24-2010, 05:49 PM

Sure, you can wipe surface water off of most any lens but the diff between a WR lens and a non-WR lens is that the WR version will not suck water into it while zooming or focusing... And if you suck rain into your lens while zooming you will have pretty much rendered your WR body "non-WR"...

**Biff** · 09-25-2010, 09:04 AM

Thanks all. I think I'll take both, watch the weather, and defer whenever possible to the 16-45. Also, I'll take a 50 f1.4 and 55-300 along in the big bag (not daypack). Seems that will cover it.

I have a couple limited, which I'd love to have along, just don't want to risk losing them, and I've been pretty darn impressed with the ones I'm taking anyway.

Cheers.

09-24-2010, 09:21 AM	#1
Biff Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: SF Bay Area Photos: Albums Posts: 1,084	Lens Water Sensitivity I'm going on a trek next month and have a WR camera body, and would presume to use my WR 18-55, which is a good lens, but I'd prefer to use my 16-45 with the wider angle, constant f4, slightly better quality, etc. Given most folks generally don't use WR lenses and take reasonable care, but lenses sometimes may get a little wet, but are soon dried off, just how sensitive are they, say to the camera body with all its electronics? I'd like to travel light during the day and not take multiple lenses, maybe one alternative is to use the 16-45, and keep the 18-55 in the main bag as a backup. The lens wouldn't be exposed to dunking, just the usual periodic rains in the Andes. Thanks for any thoughts.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K20D EXPANDED SENSITIVITY-ISO 6400	charliezap	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	02-06-2010 06:07 AM
Question - Sensitivity Steps	joodiespost	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	10	01-22-2010 08:02 AM
Please explain a use case of sensitivity priority	dardjiskien	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	9	11-30-2009 10:54 PM
AF360FGZ Slave Sensitivity?	Big I	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	3	08-06-2008 02:54 PM
*Ist DS vs K10D actual sensitivity	Matjazz	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	07-09-2007 01:36 PM

09-24-2010, 04:31 PM	#2
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by Biff I'm going on a trek next month and have a WR camera body, and would presume to use my WR 18-55, which is a good lens, but I'd prefer to use my 16-45 with the wider angle, constant f4, slightly better quality, etc. Given most folks generally don't use WR lenses and take reasonable care, but lenses sometimes may get a little wet, but are soon dried off, just how sensitive are they, say to the camera body with all its electronics? I'd like to travel light during the day and not take multiple lenses, maybe one alternative is to use the 16-45, and keep the 18-55 in the main bag as a backup. The lens wouldn't be exposed to dunking, just the usual periodic rains in the Andes. Thanks for any thoughts. Sounds like a reasonable plan: I don't know about the WR version, but I have the kit lens II and the weight of it is pretty negligible. I generally think a sealed body pretty much puts me where I'd ordinarily be with a good camera, weatherwise, and just take the usual precautions, but I suspect the WR may actually come in pretty handy there.

09-24-2010, 05:23 PM	#3
hcarvalhoalves Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: São Paulo, Brazil Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,019	Originally posted by Biff I'm going on a trek next month and have a WR camera body, and would presume to use my WR 18-55, which is a good lens, but I'd prefer to use my 16-45 with the wider angle, constant f4, slightly better quality, etc. Given most folks generally don't use WR lenses and take reasonable care, but lenses sometimes may get a little wet, but are soon dried off, just how sensitive are they, say to the camera body with all its electronics? I'd like to travel light during the day and not take multiple lenses, maybe one alternative is to use the 16-45, and keep the 18-55 in the main bag as a backup. The lens wouldn't be exposed to dunking, just the usual periodic rains in the Andes. Thanks for any thoughts. Depending where and when you're going to the Andes, it rains A LOT, specially around Peru/Bolivia. Rain season is between November - March. I would recommend using the WR if you're not used to tropical weather.

09-24-2010, 05:49 PM	#4
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	Sure, you can wipe surface water off of most any lens but the diff between a WR lens and a non-WR lens is that the WR version will not suck water into it while zooming or focusing... And if you suck rain into your lens while zooming you will have pretty much rendered your WR body "non-WR"...

09-25-2010, 09:04 AM	#5
Biff Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: SF Bay Area Photos: Albums Posts: 1,084 Original Poster	Thanks all. I think I'll take both, watch the weather, and defer whenever possible to the 16-45. Also, I'll take a 50 f1.4 and 55-300 along in the big bag (not daypack). Seems that will cover it. I have a couple limited, which I'd love to have along, just don't want to risk losing them, and I've been pretty darn impressed with the ones I'm taking anyway. Cheers.