[jeverettfine]

No one had ever heard of a WR lens when I started photography 40+ years ago. Sure, there were underwater cameras, and underwater housings etc and you knew not to drop your camera in the lake or leave it out in a rain shower. My question is: What is the real advantage of WR? If you have a vintage lens (or camera body for that matter) with no electronic components, is not weather sealing unnecessary? My feeling is that it is the electronics and auto-focus mechanisms in modern lenses that need to be protected from moisture intrusion.

[sergysergy]

I would not want my Spotmatic, K1000 or Takumars to be rusty or infested with fungus (not that WR will always stop fungus...but well).

[AquaDome]

Back then, nobody carried telephones around in their pockets either, and look what happened?

[Stone G.]

No one had ever heard of a WR lens when I started photography 40+ years ago - - - - - -If you have a vintage lens (or camera body for that matter) with no electronic components, is not weather sealing unnecessary?

Well, I started in 1960, so that will be 55 years ago this summer. And even then there were some electronics in my first camera (: at least the light meter) and there were other parts sensitive to corrosion. And you could get condensation on your film and inside your lenses. Especially condensation inside lenses can be a pain to get rid of agin.

My feeling is that it is the electronics and auto-focus mechanisms in modern lenses that need to be protected from moisture intrusion.

And don't forget all the other electrical stuff in the camera bodies. Even newer analogue cameras were 'computerized'. Further, one should consider Weather and Water-and-Dust resistance on a system level: Both lens and camera body will have to be WR or AW to achieve any valuable protection.

How valuable or how 'safe' that may be, then, is an open topic for discussion. But one thing is certain: You will never get 100.0% protection and taking your camera from longer exposure in a hot, humid environment into a cool (e.g. airconditioned) environment remains a request for trouble.

Still, I am personally very happy and feel a lot safer with my Weather sealed Pentax camera bodies and my three 18-135 DA WR, 200 DA* and 100 DFA AW lenses.

[TER-OR]

I have a Minolta X7 (or 700?) at home which would argue the advantages of weather sealing. Can't quite bring myself to discard it. Hmm, I wonder if it works now, 17 years after it stopped?

I'm much more likely to take the camera on a walk with the dogs along the river when there's a slight chance of rain if it's weather sealed. I've been caught in downpours, and I've got some great shots I would have missed otherwise. The seals are also great protection against dust, and that's never a bad thing.

[JinDesu]

It's the electronics in both the lens and the camera. I've had my Sigma 17-70 short out once from rain (rather heavy rain, sure, but my DA20-40 has handled just as heavy without issues). It wouldn't focus, and my k-x at the time also shorted out. They both came back to life a few days in a rice bath though.

[jeverettfine]

I certainly see the advantages of WR, then and now. You used to have to protect your equipment more in adverse conditions, keeping the camera beneath your coat, in a case, etc. That's what the old "ever ready" cases were about. My focusing cloth always was draped over the camera when on tripod in my large format days. I suppose I should get at least one nice WR lens to go with my K-3 when I have an urge to go out into the weather. Till then, I'll protect my equipment as I have always done.

[stevebrot]

If you have a vintage lens (or camera body for that matter) with no electronic components, is not weather sealing unnecessary? My feeling is that it is the electronics and auto-focus mechanisms in modern lenses that need to be protected from moisture intrusion.

You bring up and interesting set of questions. I have been doing photography since the late 1960s with most of that time being spent on the North Pacific coast of North America. Aside from the obvious, I never took particular care with my 35mm film cameras and manual focus lenses, even those bodies with electronic shutter and exposure automation. There are a number of reasons for this:

• The general construction of most film SLRs provides fairly good protection from incidental moisture and dust exposure. This is particularly true when used with the camera's case. With the exception of the areas around the top deck controls, there are few areas where water can enter and even fewer where it will seep directly onto the camera's electronics (usually housed above the pentaprism) or shutter.
• Likewise, the general construction of most manual focus lenses tend to provide a degree of protection from both water and dust. The focus helicoid forms an effective barrier at that point and most other parts have significant overlap and tight tolerances in the interest of minimizing stray light leakage. I own several lenses that are 50 years and older that have NO internal dust and no evidence of moisture on the internal elements.
• The electronics in film cameras up until the AF era were relatively limited and compact and could be protected more easily. I think that is one reason why the survival rate for 70s and 80s era electronic shutter cameras is so outrageously high when compared to the models that followed.*

Enter motorized-drive AF film cameras and eventually their digital successors:

• Support of the AF system increased the vulnerability to moisture an order of magnitude due to the increased number of electrical/electronic components required. These moved from the relative safety of the prism housing to locations under plastic panels on the front of the body and or grip.
• Ditto for film/shutter drive components
• AF lenses no longer have the protection of the grease-packed focus helicoid. Instead the focus mechanisms have loose tolerances and few intrinsic barriers to water/dust entry
• In-lens AF motors add the additional complexity of external switches, wiring, and electronic control components. All of those are vulnerable and on a non-WR lens, very exposed.
• Digital brought the highly vulnerable top and rear LCD along with a multitude of buttons and levers, each of which sits above a nest of electronics. Not good.

So...what to do? I am not particularly concerned about using my manual focus glass on the K-3 with the exception of M42 lenses having narrow bases. I am fairly protective of my Sigma 17-70 (C) and less so with my screw-drive AF glass. I have seriously considered getting a WR kit lens for shooting under challenging conditions. I avoid a direct challenge to the WR seals on the body and actively shield my lenses in the same manner as back in the film days.

So far, so good.

Steve

* I own several late 70s and early-to-mid 80s era bodies and they are the most dependable cameras on my shelf. That totally amazes me.

[jeverettfine]

My conclusions exactly about the older equipment. They never seemed to require much "protection". I still have a very nice KX body and a set of 6 KA mount lenses the range from 35 to 200 (used on my K-3 when desired). Add to that my FA 20-35, 2 DA lenses (15 and 70). I am thinking a DA 18-135 would be a great addition and make a nice WR one lens walk-around kit. Up to now my 20-35 has been the favorite digital "walk-around" with the DA 70 in a pocket.

[Lowell Goudge]

Having shot for over 30 years and shot in snow , rain and on beaches, I can say that I took precautions then that I still use even though my cameras are WR. I consider WR insurance not functional,

It is not just electroncis , sand and dust killed metal bladed shitters just as much then, as they do now, and sand scratched film if it got in the film path,

As others have noted, fungus and moisture could kill lenses just as easily back then , and corrosion from water(possibly salty) would be just as bad then as now.

Nothing has changed except users expectations

[Just1MoreDave]

I am not likely to go in the rain on purpose, but WR is great in an unexpected shower. That makes it great for travel. I went on a hike this July in the Rockies where the trail unexpectedly was up a waterfall - lots of snow the previous winter hadn't all run off yet. I like going out in snowstorms too. I have used a snowbank as a tripod to rest the camera in. I have used a rock in a stream as a tripod to shoot the misty waterfall above. It allows you to bring the camera along and use it when you might not have.

[K-Three]

Not sure if it's the WR or the dust reduction systems, likely a bit of both,
I've got 4 Pentax DSLRs; istDS, K200D, K5 and K3,
With each generation the dust on the sensor problem has gotten less,
The istDS is horrible with dust, you can clean it and the dust gets back before you can get the lens back on it.
The K200D is better, a WR body, with SR and dust reduction, but only recently acquired WR lenses, when it was my "new" body I did not have any WR lenses, but had far less trouble with dust than with the DS
The K5 and K3 are about equal, and I have a few WR lenses now, that I'm sure help.
I too live on the damp side of the Cascades, I rarely go out in our "frog strangler" storms, but the normally foggy, misty, rain forest climate makes me glad I've invested in WR systems. One less thing to worry about.

[Blue]

No one had ever heard of a WR lens when I started photography 40+ years ago. Sure, there were underwater cameras, and underwater housings etc and you knew not to drop your camera in the lake or leave it out in a rain shower. My question is: What is the real advantage of WR? If you have a vintage lens (or camera body for that matter) with no electronic components, is not weather sealing unnecessary? My feeling is that it is the electronics and auto-focus mechanisms in modern lenses that need to be protected from moisture intrusion.

I do a lot of outdoor photography often on rivers etc. While I didn't have WR in the 80s and 90s, I sure wish I did. Lenses fogging up is a PITA when dealing with sudden temp changes and moisture gradients.