[woodywesty]

I've ordered the K3 and it is supposed to arrive this week! And now I realize that I don't actually have an appropriate bag for it so I'd appreciate any advise. On B&H's site they show the Ruggard Hunter 35 holster bag as on of the options for the K3 and it looks to be a pretty nice bag but...... I also have a brand new Pentax DA 16-50 lens for the K3 which will be my only new lens (other than all my old Takumar glass) until funds allow for additional purchases. So for the most part I'll only be traveling around with the K3 and the DA 16-50 lens. Based on that a nice holster type bag looks fine except.... the Ruggard Hunter 35 might not hold the length of the DA 16 to 50 and I'm really wondering if it is reasonable to leave the lens hood screwed/locked in place so the camera is always ready to use when I pull it from the bag. If it is OK then I'll need a longer bag to hold the camera/lens combination. In the "old days" all the metal lens hoods just screwed securely onto the metal prime lens body. The DA 16-50 is my first zoom/autofocus lens and I suspect they are a little more delicate than the metal primes. I'm concerned about the twist/lock motion of putting on and removing the lens hood and the possibility of unnecessary torsion on the lens barrel causing internal mechanical damage to the operating mechanisms. Call me crazy but it is an expensive lens and it does have a bit of a history with problems and I don't want to be a cause of any problems. So, do you leave the lens hood on in the bag? If so I will need a longer holster bag for sure.

Thanks, Bob

[jatrax]

I'm concerned about the twist/lock motion of putting on and removing the lens hood and the possibility of unnecessary torsion on the lens barrel causing internal mechanical damage to the operating mechanisms.

I have used 16-50 with k-x and k-5 for several years. I always reverse the hood when I put it away and put it back on when I take it out. I don't think I would worry about that causing any issues. I must have done it 100's of times so far. I do make sure the lens cap is on though, that front element is very close to front of lens and I don't want it rubbing on anything in the bag.

[woodywesty]

I have used 16-50 with k-x and k-5 for several years. I always reverse the hood when I put it away and put it back on when I take it out. I don't think I would worry about that causing any issues. I must have done it 100's of times so far. I do make sure the lens cap is on though, that front element is very close to front of lens and I don't want it rubbing on anything in the bag.

That's good to know... In my mind I imagine all the internal mechanisms, tolerances, strength of polymer components and delicate little motors and I freak out about the lens. I'm going to be plenty cautious for awhile while I get to learn just how to use the lens.

I went ahead and purchased the B&W 007 neutral MRC filter to protect the front element. As the new lens came out of the package the filter went on. Optical glass is dense but soft and none of my 40+ year old lenses have scratches. I've read a lot about filters on the forum and understand that there is some compromise by using them but for the time being I'll keep it on. Once I learn about the new lens and camera as well about digital photography I'll do some comparison shots and see what I can as far as sharpness and color correction.

[jatrax]

I've read a lot about filters on the forum and understand that there is some compromise by using them

I don't use filters except for NDs and CPLs but I always use the hood. So far nothing to convince me I need one. But whatever makes you comfortable. I think with a good modern multi-coated filter you won't see too much difference in most cases. However, at night, or anytime you have bright point sources of light or are shooting into the sun there is a difference. Take the filter off for night shots and I think you will be fine.

[woodywesty]

I don't use filters except for NDs and CPLs but I always use the hood. So far nothing to convince me I need one. But whatever makes you comfortable. I think with a good modern multi-coated filter you won't see too much difference in most cases. However, at night, or anytime you have bright point sources of light or are shooting into the sun there is a difference. Take the filter off for night shots and I think you will be fine.

I guess that "way back" when I did a lot of photography that the lens hoods (when I used them) didn't project out as far as they do now on the zoom lenses so there is a lot more protection out front. Do you know if the lens coatings are a fired on ceramic or simply a tough film coating. If the coatings are a fired on hard compound I'd be much less worried about physically cleaning the element with a lens cloth.

[jatrax]

Do you know if the lens coatings are a fired on ceramic or simply a tough film coating.

I don't know the specifics but the newer coatings are supposed to be very hard. I think there is as much science in the coatings as there is in the glass. And different coatings are used on different elements. I read someplace that the front element has a coating that is very hard and resistant to scratches but inner elements have coatings that are softer but have better light transmission.

I rarely clean lenses, except to blow the dust off. If I do clean I make sure all the grit is off first, with a rocket blower, then use only a micro-fiber cloth and if needed some optical glass cleaner. I think the old 'lens cleaning papers' were actually responsible for a lot of the scratches on older lenses. I often find those packs in old gear bags I buy, and I toss them as soon as I find them. Honestly you can have a lot of crud on the front element and it never be seen in an image.

[woodywesty]

I don't know the specifics but the newer coatings are supposed to be very hard. I think there is as much science in the coatings as there is in the glass. And different coatings are used on different elements. I read someplace that the front element has a coating that is very hard and resistant to scratches but inner elements have coatings that are softer but have better light transmission.

I rarely clean lenses, except to blow the dust off. If I do clean I make sure all the grit is off first, with a rocket blower, then use only a micro-fiber cloth and if needed some optical glass cleaner. I think the old 'lens cleaning papers' were actually responsible for a lot of the scratches on older lenses. I often find those packs in old gear bags I buy, and I toss them as soon as I find them. Honestly you can have a lot of crud on the front element and it never be seen in an image.

Opps.... that's another thing I need to get... a modern cleaning kit ;-)

Thanks!

[Eric Auer]

I just got back yesterday from My daughters XC State Championship and as usual I walked around with no lens cap and just a hood

Had the K-5 IIs on my shoulder all day in a crowd of over 3000 people and all is good. I've done this a lot and never scratched a lens.

Nicks and dings on the barrel and camera yes, But no glass damage.

[woodywesty]

I just got back yesterday from My daughters XC State Championship and as usual I walked around with no lens cap and just a hood

Had the K-5 IIs on my shoulder all day in a crowd of over 3000 people and all is good. I've done this a lot and never scratched a lens.

Nicks and dings on the barrel and camera yes, But no glass damage.

Well, I'm starting to think that just maybe I can do without the lens filter "protector" and will just focus on a couple filters for effect...

[Apapukas]

Well, I'm starting to think that just maybe I can do without the lens filter "protector" and will just focus on a couple filters for effect...

IMO, you are right.

Even the best UV/Protector filter is still another piece of glass in front of your lens. Why bother when you can just use the hood, which opposite to the filter, improves or at least doesn't reduce your lens potential.

Also, good filters are expensive.

[woodywesty]

IMO, you are right.

Even the best UV/Protector filter is still another piece of glass in front of your lens. Why bother when you can just use the hood, which opposite to the filter, improves or at least doesn't reduce your lens potential.


Also, good filters are expensive.

Yes they are!! especially the German filters... actually, German anything

[Apapukas]

Yes they are!! especially the German filters... actually, German anything

True!

But you get what you pay for. Somebody used to tell me : good things aren't cheap, cheap things aren't good

[Driline]

On B&H's site they show the Ruggard Hunter 35 holster bag as on of the options for the K3 and it looks to be a pretty nice bag but...... I also have a brand new Pentax DA 16-50 lens for the K3 which will be my only new lens

I personally like the Domke F-5XB from B&H. It's just large enough to hold both the K-3 and a long lens or the K-3 and two short lenses. The bag is made of canvas and includes both a zipper and velcro closure. Domke F-5XB Shoulder/Belt Bag (Olive) 700-52D B&H Photo Video

[atupdate]

Here is a camera bag review site with over 30 holsters you can look at.

All Reviews - Cambags.com Camera Bag Resource.

Tim

[yorik]

Here is a camera bag review site with over 30 holsters you can look at.

All Reviews - Cambags.com Camera Bag Resource.

Tim

I use the Think Tank holster bag listed there: Think Tank Photo Holster 20 V2.0

I love it. I find that with the extension open, I can carry the K5 with one lens on (e.g., FA 77) and another at the bottom (e.g., FA 43), and a spare battery and SD card in the little pocket on top.