[abacus07]

With all the recent complaints about the Ricoh price hikes for lenses, there's been several posts where pentax lenses have been compared to Nikon or Canon lenses on prices alone. I've yet to see one comment to the effect that that the Pentax lens costs more than the Nikon because its WR.

I understand and respect that folks want WR lenses, i just don't think they want to pay for it.

The two cheap kit lenses are WR so I don't see WR adding that much cost imo. Especially when we are talking about $600-$800 lens.

[eddie1960]

I've never looked at the Canon, but I'm pretty certain at a minimum all the L glass is WR (which in itself is more than Pentax has)
A little looking comes up with this list of verified ones. nothing in the close to affordable range though and only FF lenses (no EF-s)

EF 14mm f/2.8L II (True)
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L (True)
EF 17-40mm f/4L (True)
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L (True)
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM (True)
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (True)
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS (True)
EF 300mm f/2.8L IS (True)
EF 400mm f/2.8L IS (True)
EF 500mm f/4L IS (True)
EF 600mm f/4L IS (True)

[philbaum]

I've never looked at the Canon, but I'm pretty certain at a minimum all the L glass is WR (which in itself is more than Pentax has)
A little looking comes up with this list of verified ones. nothing in the close to affordable range though and only FF lenses (no EF-s)

Thanks Eddie for all the research, i had no idea that Nikon and Canon are doing that much in the WR area.

[eddie1960]

Thanks Eddie for all the research, i had no idea that Nikon and Canon are doing that much in the WR area.

Well at the high end it was pretty much a given as the Big FF beasts are promoted that way. The Nikon F5 and F6 were both well sealed in film days
the Eos 1n was as well. those 3 at least had electronics that could be an issue. Even the LX was sealed but none of the lenses were (I think the lens point of contact may have been less of an issue on mostly mechanical cameras, the voltage was so tiny compared to current cams)
You can also use tape to seal areas that are of concern (an old but useful trick) Proper Gaffers tape leaves no residue and is pretty resistant. use it all the time and your gear will look like new down the road too

Gaffers Tape | Fabric Backed Adhesive Tape | Photographers Tape

[Blue]

Given the large number of lenses in Nikonland that are sealed Pentax has already fallen behind. . .

that is a huge list compared to Pentax (9 lenses) 10 lenses

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

Actually, its 10. You left off the D FA 100/2.8 WR macro. However, Nikon also has a larger overall lens catalog and has for several decades. Therefore, the percentages of sealed lenses overall are probably closer.

[eddie1960]

Actually, its 10. You left off the D FA 100/2.8 WR macro. However, Nikon also has a larger overall lens catalog and has for several decades. Therefore, the percentages of sealed lenses overall are probably closer.

but Pentax has a big gap in primes more than anything else. Nikon has done a good job of covering low to High IMO. won't make me move to the brand but My original point when i first posted this info on the forum was WR is no longer the unique sell point it once was
Also if you look a good majority of the best Nikon lenses have sealing where it is a small percentage of Pentax's best lenses. Given Hoya ran on a tight budget and limited release schedule that isn't surprising. Ricoh though seem to bee long term so I would expect this stuff to get addressed. So rather than do another production run on the LTDS (FA and DA) before the next run they should come up with a Mark 2 design that incorporates WR (and maybe a Ring motor), and the same as other lenses head to the next run (so DFA50 1.4 WR for instance) same holds true in the better zooms, though WR coverage is pretty good there but the 12-24 and 10-17 are both excellent candidates as is the 17-70 (which in a WR version would be the perfect kit upgrade at the K5 Level)

[Blue]

but Pentax has a big gap in primes more than anything else. Nikon has done a good job of covering low to High IMO. won't make me move to the brand but My original point when i first posted this info on the forum was WR is no longer the unique sell point it once was
Also if you look a good majority of the best Nikon lenses have sealing where it is a small percentage of Pentax's best lenses. Given Hoya ran on a tight budget and limited release schedule that isn't surprising. Ricoh though seem to bee long term so I would expect this stuff to get addressed. So rather than do another production run on the LTDS (FA and DA) before the next run they should come up with a Mark 2 design that incorporates WR (and maybe a Ring motor), and the same as other lenses head to the next run (so DFA50 1.4 WR for instance) same holds true in the better zooms, though WR coverage is pretty good there but the 12-24 and 10-17 are both excellent candidates as is the 17-70 (which in a WR version would be the perfect kit upgrade at the K5 Level)

A ring motor and weather sealing would be tough with the LTD series and maintaining their compactness. However, my main point was: 1) that Nikon has a bigger catalog overall, and 2), that 100 WR macro closes up that gap on primes with 55, 100, 200, 300. Really a DA* 30 and 20 would round that out well. Of course the discontinued the FA 600/4 which wasn't sealed and have the 560 on the horizon.

[eddie1960]

actually 4 lenses would round it out I add the 24 because it gives you the 35mm FOV which is already a missing length that is very popular with some, just look at the silly prices on used 24mm
UWA (ie DA* 14)
DA*20
DA*24
DA*30

[Blue]

actually 4 lenses would round it out I add the 24 because it gives you the 35mm FOV which is already a missing length that is very popular with some, just look at the silly prices on used 24mm
UWA (ie DA* 14)
DA*20
DA*24
DA*30

The FA 31 ltd is already the larger of all the ltd series lenses. Therefore, they could conceivably put its optics in a DA* packaging without it being a large lens compared to the DA* 55/1.4. They could call it a D FA* 31/1.8 or D FA 31/1.8 WR like the D FA 100/2.8 WR macro.

[eddie1960]

I would actually settle for the FA LTD series to just have WR sealing added and a rear coating to cut any sensor reflections. for that matter the DALTD the same just add the basic WR (which shouldn't impact the size - it's pretty much a rubber band on the mount and an internal gasket that limits dust and moisture - given the tight tolerance on these lenses that may add size

[lytrytyr]

actually 4 lenses would round it out I add the 24 because it gives you the 35mm FOV which is already a missing length that is very popular with some, just look at the silly prices on used 24mm
UWA (ie DA* 14)
DA*20
DA*24
DA*30

Since we already have DA14/DA15, DA21, and FA31, albeit not WR,
it's the DA*24 that should have the priority.
Realistically, f/2, and better edge resolution than the FA*24.
Something like the Zeiss Distagon 24/2 ZA SSM (Sony mount).

[eddie1960]

I think even if it was just an updated for digital FA*24 many would be happy. Hell I'd be happy if they made a 2.8 DA ltd variant with/Without WR and priced it like the other DA ltd (the lens you describe would be nice but likely border on the $1400 price point at minimum (the Nikon 1.4 is $2000 - the 2.8 is $360 as an example and the Zeiss is $1400)
If they could bring out a DA variant @ 2.4-2.8 for $600-800 it would be unique in the market and sell in considerably more volume than a $1400 DA* would

[Blue]

Since we already have DA14/DA15, DA21, and FA31, albeit not WR,
it's the DA*24 that should have the priority.
Realistically, f/2, and better edge resolution than the FA*24.
Something like the Zeiss Distagon 24/2 ZA SSM (Sony mount).

The DA 14 has the build qualities of the DA* lens except for WR and SDM. Those 2 things could be added to it and it wouldn't effect its size since it is already somewhat large.

[eddie1960]

The DA 14 has the build qualities of the DA* lens except for WR and SDM. Those 2 things could be added to it and it wouldn't effect its size since it is already somewhat large.

It is somewhat large (and heavy - I own one) If it was updated to WR and a Ring motor I would seriously consider upgrading mine to the new version. I though a lot about going to a DA15 but i use it in low light frequently and that 2.8 is important to me. I also think it's a vastly underrated lens. It has been out long enough it's due for a refresh anyway. (mine is now 8 years old I bought it with my DS) It may not be WR but it is well sealed (see the first review in the lens section) Mine has certainly seen it's fair share of stupidity at shows i'm shooting including being doused in beer (I always carry a towel and water at the shows this may happen at)

[ChatMechant]

Couple days ago I was out hiking and snapping landscapes in windy, cold, rainy weather. While I was stoked to be able to be shooting at all with my k7 + 18-50, so many times I wished I would have been able to use my ultra-wide as well. It makes no sense that there isn't a 12-24 WR. I would personally like a 55-300WR, but Pentax has higher-end telephotos that are WR. Not so much on the wide side.