[RioRico]

I'll call for a Pentax digital version of the Nikonos, thanks -- REALLY waterproof, not just weather resistant. I can see it now: the Pentax DA-UW line, mounting on the K6U. (The 6 is for 6 fathoms.) But how many minimarts will I have to rob to pay for that system?

[disya2]

My vote would go for something like 35 f/2.0 WR or 50 1.2 WR if they complement it with FF body

[eddie1960]

Given the large number of lenses in Nikonland that are sealed Pentax has already fallen behind. They need to introduce a good number of primes (AFAIAC all Limited lenses should be WR for one) - So the answer is yes I'd like to see more. In fact I think if it is going to be one of the big sell features for the line at least 75% of the lenses should be WR. Right now Nikon crushes us and they don't even actively promote the idea. (including some good value dx and fx kit highlighted too - not just the pricey gear)

nikon lenses that are sealed (27 in total including multi versions)

Film/Digital
14-24 f2.8
16-35 f4 VR
24 f1.4 AF-S
24-70 f2.8
24-120 f4VR
28-300 f3.5-5.6 VR
35 f1.4 AF-S
50 f1.4 AF-S
50 f1.8 AF-S
55-300 f4-5.6 VR
70-200 f2.8 (I and II)
85 f1.4 AF-S
200 f2 VR
200-400 f4 VR (I and II)
300 f4VR
400 f2.8 VR
500f4 VR
600f4 VR

DX Digital Only
10-24 f3.5-4.5
12-24 f4
17-55 f2.8
18-200 VR (I and II)
18-70 f3.5-4.5
35 f1.8
60 f2.8 AF-S Micro

that is a huge list compared to Pentax (9 lenses)

18-55wr
50-200wr
16-50
50-135
60-250
18-135
55
200
300

[RobA_Oz]

that is a huge list compared to Pentax (9 lenses)

18-55wr
50-200wr
16-50
50-135
60-250
18-135
55
200
300

You could add the 100/2.8WR macro to round the number out to 10, but I take your point about Nikon - I didn't realise they had such a large proportion of their lenses that are sealed.

This all begs a question about how well-sealed such lenses are, but I doubt too many people would be willing to voluntarily undertake a comprehensive testing programme!

[TedH42]

ALL Pentax lenses should be WR. Maybe the DAL kit lenses can stay non-WR just for lower entry cost.

Fog is a magnet for my camera, producing a whole class of images that I find irresistible, but it drenches all my equipment. At least it's not salt water spray, which I have to watch out for during my expeditions to beaches and tidal pools. My trips to the desert require dealing with dust, which just my walking about stirs up into a cloud of helicoid-abrading and sensor-spotting evilness.

Back when I started with film SLRs (a Mamiya/Sekor 1000DTL), cameras had rather simple mechanics, very little electronics (light meter sensor, meter indicator, battery), and were thus inherently more rugged than today's DSLRs, which are full of electronics and many small moving parts. My friends and I took our cameras to the North Shore of Oahu, slapped on our cheap 400mm preset lenses, and took surfing pictures. At the end of the day, a wipe with a damp towel, and a careful cleaning of the salt spray off the front of the lens. The next day, it was off to shoot motorcycle racing for Hawaii Raceway Magazine, out on the track right next to the bikes hurtling by. There, I learned how to change M42 lenses on the dead run through the dust clouds, as I lined up for a close-in wideangle shot 4 feet from flying bikes, or a telephoto shot of a tangle of bikes exiting the straightaway. At the end of the day, bring out the damp cloth for the outside, and the blower with camel-hair brush for the inside.

I went Pentax, and eventually ended up with a fleet of M-series lenses to go with my LX. A very rugged equipment set that I could count on at the beach, on drizzly days, when there was a fog hovering above the snow, anytime. Clean at the end of the day, keep going.

Although I now shoot only digital, I expect that my equipment will still be able to get the pictures that I want. WR is a requirement for my confidence in my equipment, and, for me, merely brings equipment survivability back to the level of those old film SLRs. DSLR equipment without WR requires babying to avoid equipment failure. Covers for bodies and lenses are awkward, and if they get some water inside, can actually increase the damage. And avoiding those great situations is not satisfactory at all.

My 2nd DA lens was the 55-300, to complement the 18-55 kit lens on my K100D. I took this combo to the beach, but felt antsy about the lack of protection for the electronics and mechanics in the system from the salt and sand. I eventually got an old K200D, a 18-55 WR, and a 50-200 WR as my inexpensive, yet rugged, "beach kit". Not quite wide enough, not quite long enough, not quite sharp enough, but it's "WR" and fairly expendable. With this kit, I'll wade into the waves washing up the beach to get images that unprotected equipment won't survive. This summer, my new K5 will take over for the K200D at the beach. (I'm not talking about getting "into" the waves themselves, just up to about mid-calf. For "into" the waves, I'll get something like a WG-2.)

The K200D won't be put to pasture just yet. I also want to use some of my sharper M and A-series primes out in the beach wash zone. I recently got some O-rings to fill that unsealed gap between the lens and the camera body (where the "A" contacts are). Some experiments will determine if they can reliably keep salt spray from penetrating that gap and getting into the camera, where major damage could be done. I'll risk the K200D rather than the K5 until I know whether this sealing is effective.

Oh, I'm supposed to select a few lenses that REALLY need to be WR? OK. As others have mentioned, the DA 55-300 should be WR. Maybe the DAL version can stay non-WR as a lower cost kit lens. The wide zoom, currently the DA 12-24, needs to go WR. Of course, if it's the current 12-24 rather than its upcoming successor that goes WR, I'll be pissed, because I've had my DA 12-24 for only 2 months and I have to keep it safe from those nasty water drops and desert dust. Unless Pentax makes a WR retrofit kit for DA lenses.

I don't see any excuse why the "Limited" lenses are not becoming WR. Without WR, I just don't see them as top of the line for my purposes, and have been reluctant to buy into them. I agree with RobA_Oz, who expects that WR will become the norm in equipment at the DSLR level. I don't want to put my money into "Limited" lenses that will soon be replaced by "Limited WR" lenses. I have my M and A-series lenses to tide me over until WR is more the norm in primes.

[Andrew Faires]

Re-do the 15mm and 43mm limited lenses (and the 70mm for that matter) with DA* grade weather sealing and I'll gladly part with some of my cash to get these lenses. Until then, my 16-50 and 50-135 have job security

[jac]

Can I ask one of my usual dumb questions? I've taken reasonable care not to expose any lenses to direct downpours. - don't get them much in the Arctic anyway. But I have used any number of them in snow, salt-spray, mist//fog, etc. and have never had a problem. Just clean 'em up when I get home. Maybe if I drop the whole kit in the ocean but ..
Has anyone had a failure due to inclement weather?

[westmill]

Well it aint going hurt anything, other than maybe price. !
It would be good for any manufacturer to anounce simply.... All our lenses are WP !
Yummy !

[westmill]

Given the large number of lenses in Nikonland that are sealed Pentax has already fallen behind. They need to introduce a good number of primes (AFAIAC all Limited lenses should be WR for one) - So the answer is yes I'd like to see more. In fact I think if it is going to be one of the big sell features for the line at least 75% of the lenses should be WR. Right now Nikon crushes us and they don't even actively promote the idea. (including some good value dx and fx kit highlighted too - not just the pricey gear)

nikon lenses that are sealed (27 in total including multi versions)

Film/Digital
14-24 f2.8
16-35 f4 VR
24 f1.4 AF-S
24-70 f2.8
24-120 f4VR
28-300 f3.5-5.6 VR
35 f1.4 AF-S
50 f1.4 AF-S
50 f1.8 AF-S
55-300 f4-5.6 VR
70-200 f2.8 (I and II)
85 f1.4 AF-S
200 f2 VR
200-400 f4 VR (I and II)
300 f4VR
400 f2.8 VR
500f4 VR
600f4 VR

DX Digital Only
10-24 f3.5-4.5
12-24 f4
17-55 f2.8
18-200 VR (I and II)
18-70 f3.5-4.5
35 f1.8
60 f2.8 AF-S Micro

that is a huge list compared to Pentax (9 lenses)

18-55wr
50-200wr
16-50
50-135
60-250
18-135
55
200
300

Oops.... you missed one, so better make that ten.... beleive it or not the Nikon 18-70 is weather sealed as cheap as it is !
Good performer too.
Double oops..... I was looking at your yellow highlights lol Doh !

[jac]

Well it aint going hurt anything, other than maybe price. !
It would be good for any manufacturer to anounce simply.... All our lenses are WP !
Yummy !

Thanks for the comment. And don't get me wrong. I'd prefer the mental freedom a complete line of WR would give. But I am curious about how serious the problem is.

[Verglace]

All besides DA-L should be WR, it would be great, and quiet focusing mechanisms!

[westmill]

Thanks for the comment. And don't get me wrong. I'd prefer the mental freedom a complete line of WR would give. But I am curious about how serious the problem is.

That can only realy be answered by the individual photographer.
I often have to shoot the horse Racing and Ive been booked to cover the Grand National. Come What may... I have to supply the pics.
My last races was at huntingdon and I had to shoot in gale force winds and rain for the last two races, so weather proof camera and lenses is
important for me. Even doing weddings Ive had to take a few standing in the rain once or twice. Model shoots too can be in sumwhat wet places.
I also once remember leaving two cameras in my studio over night which I normaly never do.
When I collected them the next day... I noticed the one with a weather proof lens was fine while the other cameras lens actualy had
condensation on the inside. So for me... WR lenses are important.

[jimr-pdx]

I'm definitely hoping the upcoming 'hi-mag zoom' and the 12ish-36ish are WR. And please, a prime or two.. or six? And why not screw+DC option while we're playing this game?

[Alizarine]

I really like the flow of this thread. Hope Ricoh... notices?

[Nick Siebers]

All I ask for is a WR 16-45, and a WR 55-300. I would buy both, and have no other need for zooms. Ah well.