WR Lenses ~ Why Not All Of Them?

Racer X 69 · 02-09-2014, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by mikemike

I think the most unfortunate omissions from the wr line up are the da limiteds.

Yes, those would make great WR lenses. And as I pointed out, the shortest focal length in a prime WR leaves out far too much wide angle territory.

And when one is outdoors, shooting landscape, wouldn't a wider angle lens be better than a 300 or 500 mm lens?

waterfall · 02-09-2014, 04:24 PM

Well Hocir now has the ridiculously over priced HD 20-40 Ltd WR. One thousand USD for this lens. With mixed reviews, althoughmthemposted images look fantastic. Can't justify replacing three of my Limited primes for less IQ.

---------- Post added 02-09-14 at 05:28 PM ----------

Racer, I almost always use my 15, 21 or 35 Ltd for landscapes. So WR would be very welcome. On rainy days, I put a one gallon freezer bag over the lens with a hole cut out for the barrel. Would save me ten bucks a year if the Ltd primes were WR.

Racer X 69 · 02-09-2014, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by waterfall

Racer, I almost always use my 15, 21 or 35 Ltd for landscapes. So WR would be very welcome. On rainy days, I put a one gallon freezer bag over the lens with a hole cut out for the barrel. Would save me ten bucks a year if the Ltd primes were WR.

See?

I knew I was not the only one!

VisualDarkness · 02-09-2014, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by tibbitts

I think the sealing costs less, or certainly not more, than having shake reduction in the lens, or at least it offsets it, so Pentax lenses with WR shouldn't cost more than competitor lenses with SR built-in. It seems like the majority of competitor lenses are coming with SR now so Pentax should be able to compete while still providing WR. And as for quality control, certainly my experience with the 55-300 DA vs. WR doesn't suggest that there's any more quality control going on in the WR.

Comparisons with other brands won't change the fact that WR is an added step in manufacturing and that extra steps most often cost money compared to just skipping them.

I know how a couple of simple rubber gaskets adds steps in manufacturing and how it adds extra inspection steps in LEAN manufacturing quality control. It may be simple but takes more time and effort. Been there done that.

gifthorse · 02-09-2014, 09:18 PM

Could someone please clarify a few things for me, please?

"All DA* lenses are WR."
Is this just the DA line or does it include the DA L? (Boriscleto mentioned all kit lenses are WR.)

"All of the * lenses are AW, which is a step above WR."
What does the asterisk signify? And where would I find the asterisk? On a lens? in a review? And "a step above" means what?

Finally, should I change my user ID to "Dumasarok"? Thanks for helping a while lot of people learn so much!

mikemike · 02-09-2014, 09:45 PM

It is a bit confusing the way they have 3 designator a for weather resistance. AW is supposed to be the highest level of sealing. WR is to designate consumer grade lenses and often as with the kit lenses, the same lens is available sealed or unsealed. DA* appears in the name of the lens. They are supposed to be sealed better than WR lenses and that series is all top level optics - f2.8 zooms and fast primes suitable for professional photographers.

**boriscleto** · 02-10-2014, 05:35 AM

Originally posted by gifthorse

Could someone please clarify a few things for me, please?

"All DA* lenses are WR."
Is this just the DA line or does it include the DA L? (Boriscleto mentioned all kit lenses are WR.)

"All of the * lenses are AW, which is a step above WR."
What does the asterisk signify? And where would I find the asterisk? On a lens? in a review? And "a step above" means what?

Finally, should I change my user ID to "Dumasarok"? Thanks for helping a while lot of people learn so much!

Quote:

What is the difference between WR and AW?
What is the difference between DA WR and DA* lenses in terms of weather sealing?
Why are the D FA 645 55mm and DA 645 25mm lenses designated as AW?

WR and AW both designate weather-sealed lenses. Non-star lenses that are designated WR use a "simplified weather-resistant construction" to protect against ingress of water. DA* lenses, although not indicated as such in the lens name, are considered AW (newer boxes for DA* lenses are often marked as such) and are "dust-proof and water-resistant because each part is individually sealed" (page 7 of the DA lens manual), offering a higher level of protection against environmental conditions than the WR designation indicates. The above 645 lenses are marketed as fully sealed against dust and water, at the same level as DA* lenses.

Racer X 69 · 02-10-2014, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by gifthorse

Finally, should I change my user ID to "Dumasarok"?

No!

If you did I would no longer have a mouth to look into!

Oh, and thank you to Mike and Boris for the clarifications!

**Just1MoreDave** · 02-10-2014, 09:32 AM

Pentax zooms are almost all WR or better. The exceptions are the 10-17, 12-24, 17-70 and 18-270. Of those, only the 17-70 is not a joint venture of some kind. The 10-17 and 12-24 also predate WR bodies. I conclude that Pentax thinks some kind of WR is more important in a zoom.

The DA Limiteds have to be a low priority. If they were going to add WR or AW to this line, it makes no sense to wait until after issuing the HD versions. I conclude that Pentax thinks we'll just use the 20-40 in rough weather.

Lenses are always slow to be designed or reworked, and well behind the bodies.

Racer X 69 · 02-10-2014, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by Just1MoreDave

I conclude that Pentax thinks we'll just use the 20-40 in rough weather.

I guess that Pentax assumes that the masses are satisfied with the lesser image quality of a zoom over the superior image quality of a prime.

tibbitts · 02-10-2014, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Racer X 69

I guess that Pentax assumes that the masses are satisfied with the lesser image quality of a zoom over the superior image quality of a prime.

The point of having a prime lens weather sealed is somewhat mitigated by the fact that it's necessary to change prime lenses far more frequently than zooms, and no camera or lens can be weather sealed while you're changing the lens. So it might be reasonable to assume that customers most concerned with weather sealing would generally prefer zooms rather than primes. There are always exceptions, such as the 400/2.8s and 600/4s of the world, that don't generally have approximate zoom equivalents, at least not yet. But for the most part, it's a challenge to keep water out of the camera, while constantly swapping between those 15/21/24/28/31/35/43/50mm lenses in your bag, vs., for example, settling for perhaps somewhat less performance from a single 16-50.

waterfall · 02-10-2014, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by tibbitts

The point of having a prime lens weather sealed is somewhat mitigated by the fact that it's necessary to change prime lenses far more frequently than zooms, and no camera or lens can be weather sealed while you're changing the lens. So it might be reasonable to assume that customers most concerned with weather sealing would generally prefer zooms rather than primes. There are always exceptions, such as the 400/2.8s and 600/4s of the world, that don't generally have approximate zoom equivalents, at least not yet. But for the most part, it's a challenge to keep water out of the camera, while constantly swapping between those 15/21/24/28/31/35/43/50mm lenses in your bag, vs., for example, settling for perhaps somewhat less performance from a single 16-50.

This is like saying because it rains, umbrellas are only recommended for those who do not have rain gear. We shoot photos in bad weather. So we choose only WR or AW lenses for those days. All we are advocating is weather protection for our favorite lenses. I do not change lens in rainy or snowy weather outdoors. Suggesting that fast prime lens changes are normal, or necessary, is not to the point of the thread.

tibbitts · 02-10-2014, 06:29 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by waterfall

This is like saying because it rains, umbrellas are only recommended for those who do not have rain gear. We shoot photos in bad weather. So we choose only WR or AW lenses for those days. All we are advocating is weather protection for our favorite lenses. I do not change lens in rainy or snowy weather outdoors. Suggesting that fast prime lens changes are normal, or necessary, is not to the point of the thread.

Earlier in the thread I tried pointing out that I think Pentax should make all lenses WR, because - besides the obvious advantage to customers - I don't think it puts Pentax at a cost disadvantage to competitors, who need to pay for in-lens SR.

Although I have only non-WR zooms, I do change them frequently in the rain/snow. Unless you carry a half-dozen or more bodies with your primes, I can't imagine how you can avoid changing your prime lenses in the rain/snow (or good weather for that matter) even more frequently than I change between my 10-20, 17-50, and 55-300. I base that partly on my prior film life with 17, 28, 35, 50, 135, and 200mm lenses (I desperately needed at least three more primes, obviously.) I do think that someone with an unlimited choice of WR primes and zooms would still mostly choose the zooms for severe weather, where the zooms might reduce the frequency of exposing the innards of the cameras/lenses to the elements.

Racer X 69 · 02-10-2014, 06:41 PM

Well I have gotten very good at swapping lenses in most of the adverse conditions I have encountered, doing so quickly and usually inder the shelter of an umbrella, my jacket, or by ducking into a car or nearby building.

Just sayin'.

waterfall · 02-10-2014, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by VisualDarkness

Comparisons with other brands won't change the fact that WR is an added step in manufacturing and that extra steps most often cost money compared to just skipping them.

I know how a couple of simple rubber gaskets adds steps in manufacturing and how it adds extra inspection steps in LEAN manufacturing quality control. It may be simple but takes more time and effort. Been there done that.

So let them add ten bucks to the price. It would be worth it. These Limited lenses are already premium prices, for good reason. Love them and own four. Wish all were WR.

---------- Post added 02-10-14 at 08:23 PM ----------

Originally posted by Just1MoreDave

Pentax zooms are almost all WR or better. The exceptions are the 10-17, 12-24, 17-70 and 18-270. Of those, only the 17-70 is not a joint venture of some kind. The 10-17 and 12-24 also predate WR bodies. I conclude that Pentax thinks some kind of WR is more important in a zoom.

The DA Limiteds have to be a low priority. If they were going to add WR or AW to this line, it makes no sense to wait until after issuing the HD versions. I conclude that Pentax thinks we'll just use the 20-40 in rough weather.

Lenses are always slow to be designed or reworked, and well behind the bodies.

Seems like,too many exceptions. But,I am grumpy.

---------- Post added 02-10-14 at 08:26 PM ----------

Originally posted by Racer X 69

Well I have gotten very good at swapping lenses in most of the adverse conditions I have encountered, doing so quickly and usually inder the shelter of an umbrella, my jacket, or by ducking into a car or nearby building.

Just sayin'.

Correct. I swap lenses outside in winter. Summer rains not so much. Will summer appear again?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
SDM vs Screw Drive, Why is only one of them silent?	geomez	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	13	07-16-2016 07:45 AM
lenses do i need them all	TGoode	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	9	09-02-2013 05:36 AM
Hoods: Why aren't them all like the one for the DA21?	carrrlangas	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	09-01-2013 04:39 PM
K30 kit lenses - WR or not WR?	monochrome	Ask B&H Photo!	2	05-24-2012 08:10 AM
K vs. M lenses..... why do most if not all prefer K?	yeatzee	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	34	04-02-2010 11:59 AM

02-09-2014, 02:44 PM	#16
Racer X 69 Moderator Man With A Camera Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: The Great Pacific Northwet, in the Land Between Canada and Mexico Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,073 Original Poster	Originally posted by mikemike I think the most unfortunate omissions from the wr line up are the da limiteds. Yes, those would make great WR lenses. And as I pointed out, the shortest focal length in a prime WR leaves out far too much wide angle territory. And when one is outdoors, shooting landscape, wouldn't a wider angle lens be better than a 300 or 500 mm lens?

02-09-2014, 04:24 PM	#17
waterfall Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Northern Minnesota Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,812	Well Hocir now has the ridiculously over priced HD 20-40 Ltd WR. One thousand USD for this lens. With mixed reviews, althoughmthemposted images look fantastic. Can't justify replacing three of my Limited primes for less IQ. ---------- Post added 02-09-14 at 05:28 PM ---------- Racer, I almost always use my 15, 21 or 35 Ltd for landscapes. So WR would be very welcome. On rainy days, I put a one gallon freezer bag over the lens with a hole cut out for the barrel. Would save me ten bucks a year if the Ltd primes were WR.

02-09-2014, 05:44 PM	#18
Racer X 69 Moderator Man With A Camera Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: The Great Pacific Northwet, in the Land Between Canada and Mexico Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,073 Original Poster	Originally posted by waterfall Racer, I almost always use my 15, 21 or 35 Ltd for landscapes. So WR would be very welcome. On rainy days, I put a one gallon freezer bag over the lens with a hole cut out for the barrel. Would save me ten bucks a year if the Ltd primes were WR. See? I knew I was not the only one!

02-09-2014, 08:16 PM	#19
VisualDarkness Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,439	Originally posted by tibbitts I think the sealing costs less, or certainly not more, than having shake reduction in the lens, or at least it offsets it, so Pentax lenses with WR shouldn't cost more than competitor lenses with SR built-in. It seems like the majority of competitor lenses are coming with SR now so Pentax should be able to compete while still providing WR. And as for quality control, certainly my experience with the 55-300 DA vs. WR doesn't suggest that there's any more quality control going on in the WR. Comparisons with other brands won't change the fact that WR is an added step in manufacturing and that extra steps most often cost money compared to just skipping them. I know how a couple of simple rubber gaskets adds steps in manufacturing and how it adds extra inspection steps in LEAN manufacturing quality control. It may be simple but takes more time and effort. Been there done that.

02-09-2014, 09:18 PM	#20
gifthorse Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Nevada Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,945	Could someone please clarify a few things for me, please? "All DA* lenses are WR." Is this just the DA line or does it include the DA L? (Boriscleto mentioned all kit lenses are WR.) "All of the * lenses are AW, which is a step above WR." What does the asterisk signify? And where would I find the asterisk? On a lens? in a review? And "a step above" means what? Finally, should I change my user ID to "Dumasarok"? Thanks for helping a while lot of people learn so much!

02-09-2014, 09:45 PM	#21
mikemike Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: New Orleans Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,053	It is a bit confusing the way they have 3 designator a for weather resistance. AW is supposed to be the highest level of sealing. WR is to designate consumer grade lenses and often as with the kit lenses, the same lens is available sealed or unsealed. DA* appears in the name of the lens. They are supposed to be sealed better than WR lenses and that series is all top level optics - f2.8 zooms and fast primes suitable for professional photographers.

02-10-2014, 05:35 AM	#22
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Originally posted by gifthorse Could someone please clarify a few things for me, please? "All DA* lenses are WR." Is this just the DA line or does it include the DA L? (Boriscleto mentioned all kit lenses are WR.) "All of the * lenses are AW, which is a step above WR." What does the asterisk signify? And where would I find the asterisk? On a lens? in a review? And "a step above" means what? Finally, should I change my user ID to "Dumasarok"? Thanks for helping a while lot of people learn so much! Pentax K-Mount Lenses Explained: The differences between various Pentax lens series The WR lenses will say WR SMC Pentax-DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL WR Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database SMC Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC WR Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database HD Pentax-DA 20-40mm F2.8-4 Limited DC WR Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database SMC Pentax-DA 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED WR Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED WR Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database SMC Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR Reviews - D FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database WR was added to the DA L 18-55 & 50-200 with the release of the K-50. SMC Pentax-DA L 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL WR Reviews - DA L Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database SMC Pentax-DA L 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED WR Reviews - DA L Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database The DA 560 was the first lens listed as AW HD Pentax-DA 560mm F5.6 ED AW Reviews - DA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database The DA* lenses can be recognized by the star after the DA. They have a gold band rather than green, red, or silver. SMC Pentax-DA* 16-50mm F2.8 ED AL [IF] SDM Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database SMC Pentax-DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED [IF] SDM Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database SMC Pentax-DA* 60-250mm F4 ED [IF] SDM Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database SMC Pentax-DA* 55mm F1.4 SDM Reviews - DA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database SMC Pentax-DA* 200mm F2.8 ED [IF] SDM Reviews - DA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database SMC Pentax-DA* 300mm F4 ED [IF] SDM Reviews - DA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database Quote: What is the difference between WR and AW? What is the difference between DA WR and DA* lenses in terms of weather sealing? Why are the D FA 645 55mm and DA 645 25mm lenses designated as AW? WR and AW both designate weather-sealed lenses. Non-star lenses that are designated WR use a "simplified weather-resistant construction" to protect against ingress of water. DA* lenses, although not indicated as such in the lens name, are considered AW (newer boxes for DA* lenses are often marked as such) and are "dust-proof and water-resistant because each part is individually sealed" (page 7 of the DA lens manual), offering a higher level of protection against environmental conditions than the WR designation indicates. The above 645 lenses are marketed as fully sealed against dust and water, at the same level as DA* lenses.

02-10-2014, 08:12 AM	#23
Racer X 69 Moderator Man With A Camera Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: The Great Pacific Northwet, in the Land Between Canada and Mexico Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,073 Original Poster	Originally posted by gifthorse Finally, should I change my user ID to "Dumasarok"? No! If you did I would no longer have a mouth to look into! Oh, and thank you to Mike and Boris for the clarifications!

02-10-2014, 09:32 AM	#24
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Pentax zooms are almost all WR or better. The exceptions are the 10-17, 12-24, 17-70 and 18-270. Of those, only the 17-70 is not a joint venture of some kind. The 10-17 and 12-24 also predate WR bodies. I conclude that Pentax thinks some kind of WR is more important in a zoom. The DA Limiteds have to be a low priority. If they were going to add WR or AW to this line, it makes no sense to wait until after issuing the HD versions. I conclude that Pentax thinks we'll just use the 20-40 in rough weather. Lenses are always slow to be designed or reworked, and well behind the bodies.

02-10-2014, 09:57 AM	#25
Racer X 69 Moderator Man With A Camera Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: The Great Pacific Northwet, in the Land Between Canada and Mexico Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,073 Original Poster	Originally posted by Just1MoreDave I conclude that Pentax thinks we'll just use the 20-40 in rough weather. I guess that Pentax assumes that the masses are satisfied with the lesser image quality of a zoom over the superior image quality of a prime.

02-10-2014, 05:49 PM	#26
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,196	Originally posted by Racer X 69 I guess that Pentax assumes that the masses are satisfied with the lesser image quality of a zoom over the superior image quality of a prime. The point of having a prime lens weather sealed is somewhat mitigated by the fact that it's necessary to change prime lenses far more frequently than zooms, and no camera or lens can be weather sealed while you're changing the lens. So it might be reasonable to assume that customers most concerned with weather sealing would generally prefer zooms rather than primes. There are always exceptions, such as the 400/2.8s and 600/4s of the world, that don't generally have approximate zoom equivalents, at least not yet. But for the most part, it's a challenge to keep water out of the camera, while constantly swapping between those 15/21/24/28/31/35/43/50mm lenses in your bag, vs., for example, settling for perhaps somewhat less performance from a single 16-50.

02-10-2014, 06:09 PM	#27
waterfall Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Northern Minnesota Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,812	Originally posted by tibbitts The point of having a prime lens weather sealed is somewhat mitigated by the fact that it's necessary to change prime lenses far more frequently than zooms, and no camera or lens can be weather sealed while you're changing the lens. So it might be reasonable to assume that customers most concerned with weather sealing would generally prefer zooms rather than primes. There are always exceptions, such as the 400/2.8s and 600/4s of the world, that don't generally have approximate zoom equivalents, at least not yet. But for the most part, it's a challenge to keep water out of the camera, while constantly swapping between those 15/21/24/28/31/35/43/50mm lenses in your bag, vs., for example, settling for perhaps somewhat less performance from a single 16-50. This is like saying because it rains, umbrellas are only recommended for those who do not have rain gear. We shoot photos in bad weather. So we choose only WR or AW lenses for those days. All we are advocating is weather protection for our favorite lenses. I do not change lens in rainy or snowy weather outdoors. Suggesting that fast prime lens changes are normal, or necessary, is not to the point of the thread.

02-10-2014, 06:29 PM - 1 Like	#28
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,196	Originally posted by waterfall This is like saying because it rains, umbrellas are only recommended for those who do not have rain gear. We shoot photos in bad weather. So we choose only WR or AW lenses for those days. All we are advocating is weather protection for our favorite lenses. I do not change lens in rainy or snowy weather outdoors. Suggesting that fast prime lens changes are normal, or necessary, is not to the point of the thread. Earlier in the thread I tried pointing out that I think Pentax should make all lenses WR, because - besides the obvious advantage to customers - I don't think it puts Pentax at a cost disadvantage to competitors, who need to pay for in-lens SR. Although I have only non-WR zooms, I do change them frequently in the rain/snow. Unless you carry a half-dozen or more bodies with your primes, I can't imagine how you can avoid changing your prime lenses in the rain/snow (or good weather for that matter) even more frequently than I change between my 10-20, 17-50, and 55-300. I base that partly on my prior film life with 17, 28, 35, 50, 135, and 200mm lenses (I desperately needed at least three more primes, obviously.) I do think that someone with an unlimited choice of WR primes and zooms would still mostly choose the zooms for severe weather, where the zooms might reduce the frequency of exposing the innards of the cameras/lenses to the elements.

02-10-2014, 06:41 PM	#29
Racer X 69 Moderator Man With A Camera Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: The Great Pacific Northwet, in the Land Between Canada and Mexico Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,073 Original Poster	Well I have gotten very good at swapping lenses in most of the adverse conditions I have encountered, doing so quickly and usually inder the shelter of an umbrella, my jacket, or by ducking into a car or nearby building. Just sayin'.

02-10-2014, 06:57 PM	#30
waterfall Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Northern Minnesota Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,812	Originally posted by VisualDarkness Comparisons with other brands won't change the fact that WR is an added step in manufacturing and that extra steps most often cost money compared to just skipping them. I know how a couple of simple rubber gaskets adds steps in manufacturing and how it adds extra inspection steps in LEAN manufacturing quality control. It may be simple but takes more time and effort. Been there done that. So let them add ten bucks to the price. It would be worth it. These Limited lenses are already premium prices, for good reason. Love them and own four. Wish all were WR. ---------- Post added 02-10-14 at 08:23 PM ---------- Originally posted by Just1MoreDave Pentax zooms are almost all WR or better. The exceptions are the 10-17, 12-24, 17-70 and 18-270. Of those, only the 17-70 is not a joint venture of some kind. The 10-17 and 12-24 also predate WR bodies. I conclude that Pentax thinks some kind of WR is more important in a zoom. The DA Limiteds have to be a low priority. If they were going to add WR or AW to this line, it makes no sense to wait until after issuing the HD versions. I conclude that Pentax thinks we'll just use the 20-40 in rough weather. Lenses are always slow to be designed or reworked, and well behind the bodies. Seems like,too many exceptions. But,I am grumpy. ---------- Post added 02-10-14 at 08:26 PM ---------- Originally posted by Racer X 69 Well I have gotten very good at swapping lenses in most of the adverse conditions I have encountered, doing so quickly and usually inder the shelter of an umbrella, my jacket, or by ducking into a car or nearby building. Just sayin'. Correct. I swap lenses outside in winter. Summer rains not so much. Will summer appear again?