[Dainty Handsome]

I've been thoroughly enjoying my Pentax K-1 with a variety of late 90s / early 00s primes, but I just don't dare to use these lenses in rainy conditions (both AF and MF). I'm looking for a full frame, 28mm lens that is weather sealed, but my research hasn't turned up anything yet.

Would it also be possible to just buy a cheap third party MF lens that's specifically for destructive weather conditions and salt, or do I need to be worried about the seal between the camera and lens?

---------- Post added 07-04-16 at 11:17 AM ----------

Just answered my own question

Pro tip: buy a cheap 28mm MF lens, and a roll of waterproof tape. Seal the edge of the lens mount for the day you're shooting in the rain.

[Barry Pearson]

I've been thoroughly enjoying my Pentax K-1 with a variety of late 90s / early 00s primes, but I just don't dare to use these lenses in rainy conditions (both AF and MF). I'm looking for a full frame, 28mm lens that is weather sealed, but my research hasn't turned up anything yet.

Must it be a prime?

Review of the D FA 28-105mm f/3.5-f/5.6 lens

Example: I recently compared this lens with the DA* 55mm f/1.4, and concluded that at the aperture that the 55mm had good FF corner-to-corner image sharpness, (f/5.6), so did the 28-105mm lens. In other words, it had prime-lens quality at 55mm.

See its review at ePHOTOzine.

The 28-105mm lens accompanies my K-1 everywhere.

[jatrax]

I'm looking for a full frame, 28mm lens that is weather sealed, but my research hasn't turned up anything yet.

Stop back in six months or so.

Pro tip: buy a cheap 28mm MF lens, and a roll of waterproof tape. Seal the edge of the lens mount for the day you're shooting in the rain.

Not sure that would be effective since other areas of the lens would not be sealed. Still, I've shot in the rain with non-sealed cameras and lenses over the years and had good success. You just use some caution and avoid driving rain.

[Phenix]

modify some ziploc
not sure on thin prime though

[alamo5000]

modify some ziploc

MUCH MUCH better solution for the time being.

[Adam]

I've been thoroughly enjoying my Pentax K-1 with a variety of late 90s / early 00s primes, but I just don't dare to use these lenses in rainy conditions (both AF and MF). I'm looking for a full frame, 28mm lens that is weather sealed, but my research hasn't turned up anything yet.

Would it also be possible to just buy a cheap third party MF lens that's specifically for destructive weather conditions and salt, or do I need to be worried about the seal between the camera and lens?

---------- Post added 07-04-16 at 11:17 AM ----------

Just answered my own question

Pro tip: buy a cheap 28mm MF lens, and a roll of waterproof tape. Seal the edge of the lens mount for the day you're shooting in the rain.

I've been thoroughly enjoying my Pentax K-1 with a variety of late 90s / early 00s primes, but I just don't dare to use these lenses in rainy conditions (both AF and MF). I'm looking for a full frame, 28mm lens that is weather sealed, but my research hasn't turned up anything yet.

A weather-sealed wide-angle lens is on the roadmap along with several other D FA primes. These are slated for release in 2017 or later:

2016 Pentax Full Frame Lens Roadmaps - CP+ 2016 | PentaxForums.com

As you can see here, the only current FF primes are the 100mm macro and 200mm, 300mm, and 560mm teles:

Weather Sealed Full Frame Lenses | PentaxForums.com

[surfar]

Dicapac sealed cases are lots cheaper and do a GOOD job.They make them in all sizes too.From small phone to big Dslr.

[rawr]

The only current primes that are weather sealed and FF compatible are the DA*55, D FA 100 macro WR, DA*200, DA*300, and the DA 560 WR.

It does seem a deficiency not to have any primes wider and WR in the FF lineup [yet], especially for a landscape and outdoors camera like the K-1.

[tgchan]

modify some ziploc
not sure on thin prime though

Looks like a murder tool or something xD

[Dainty Handsome]

Plastic bag trick looks pretty great, definitely worth trying with an AF lens. I have a Sigma 24mm F2.8 AF that would be perfect for. The 28-105 looks interesting, but out of my budget for awhile.

I might also purchase an Olympus TG-5 and just forget about it until prices come down on the 28-105.

[Snakeisthestuff]

Must it be a prime?

Review of the D FA 28-105mm f/3.5-f/5.6 lens

Example: I recently compared this lens with the DA* 55mm f/1.4, and concluded that at the aperture that the 55mm had good FF corner-to-corner image sharpness, (f/5.6), so did the 28-105mm lens. In other words, it had prime-lens quality at 55mm.

See its review at ePHOTOzine.

The 28-105mm lens accompanies my K-1 everywhere.

I tested both lenses extensively in the store myself.

I found that even though te sharpness is comparable the 28-105 has a lot more distortion at 55mm and more ugly "bokeh balls".

On the other hand you need to learn how to handle the 55 since it can produce funky bokeh i.e. F1.4.
Also the AWR of the 55 is of course superior (after having fungus in my 18-55 WR, I think that might matter).

[Barry Pearson]

I tested both lenses extensively in the store myself.

I found that even though te sharpness is comparable the 28-105 has a lot more distortion at 55mm and more ugly "bokeh balls".

On the other hand you need to learn how to handle the 55 since it can produce funky bokeh i.e. F1.4.
Also the AWR of the 55 is of course superior (after having fungus in my 18-55 WR, I think that might matter).

I use Lightroom and its lens profiles, so distortion (etc) tends not to be a problem.

I've just tried switching off the lens profile correction for the DA* 55mm at f/1.4, and that turned it from a lens with dreadful image quality (on the K-1) to a lens with dreadful image quality and bad distortion and bad vignetting (without the hood)!

I've had the DA* 55mm since January 2012, and it has never been a lens that I could take seriously at f/1.4, even on K-5-series and K-3-series APS-C cameras. (Perhaps mine is a bad one, but I've seen criticism about it wide open elsewhere).

I recently did a walk around a stately home with the DA* 55mm on my K-1 at f/2.8, and was disappointed with left and right edge sharpness for photos of the building itself and its grounds, and the corners were a bit worse.

I haven't compared the bokeh. And I'm not very worried about the difference between WR and AW, because one difference is that in bad weather I try not to change lenses, and so I prefer zooms to primes.

[hoopsontoast]

If you can save for the D-FA28-105, I have found it excellent in the few weeks that I've had mine with the K-1.
On a recent Stag Do, the WR came in really usefull:

63mm



28mm



And bokeh quality not too bad:

105mm

[Snakeisthestuff]

I use Lightroom and its lens profiles, so distortion (etc) tends not to be a problem.

I've just tried switching off the lens profile correction for the DA* 55mm at f/1.4, and that turned it from a lens with dreadful image quality (on the K-1) to a lens with dreadful image quality and bad distortion and bad vignetting (without the hood)!

I've had the DA* 55mm since January 2012, and it has never been a lens that I could take seriously at f/1.4, even on K-5-series and K-3-series APS-C cameras. (Perhaps mine is a bad one, but I've seen criticism about it wide open elsewhere).

I recently did a walk around a stately home with the DA* 55mm on my K-1 at f/2.8, and was disappointed with left and right edge sharpness for photos of the building itself and its grounds, and the corners were a bit worse.

I haven't compared the bokeh. And I'm not very worried about the difference between WR and AW, because one difference is that in bad weather I try not to change lenses, and so I prefer zooms to primes.

You might have a bad copy. I was sceptical too at the beginning (was seriously thinking about the 55 or the 28-105) but this lens blew my DA 35 Ltd. Macro away in sharpness as well as my SMC Takumar 50mm 1.4. I thought the problems with the extreme corners at infinity would bother me but actually the SMC Tak is even worse in this aspect so I take it for granted.

I agree during bad weather nobody should change their lenses because the elements can get into the camera, same is partly true for the lens when being zoomed, even though its WR, during bad weather (which I had to learn the hard way).
Since I bought the 55 for extensive bad weather abuse I wanted to be sure it lasts longer than my last WR zoom.

Do not get me wrong I totally agree that the 28-105 is a very fine lens, and so is the 55 (in my opinion). They have just slightly different use cases and both their advantages / disadvantages.

[Barry Pearson]

You might have a bad copy. I was sceptical too at the beginning (was seriously thinking about the 55 or the 28-105) but this lens blew my DA 35 Ltd. Macro away in sharpness as well as my SMC Takumar 50mm 1.4. I thought the problems with the extreme corners at infinity would bother me but actually the SMC Tak is even worse in this aspect so I take it for granted.

I agree during bad weather nobody should change their lenses because the elements can get into the camera, same is partly true for the lens when being zoomed, even though its WR, during bad weather (which I had to learn the hard way).
Since I bought the 55 for extensive bad weather abuse I wanted to be sure it lasts longer than my last WR zoom.

Do not get me wrong I totally agree that the 28-105 is a very fine lens, and so is the 55 (in my opinion). They have just slightly different use cases and both their advantages / disadvantages.

Perhaps it is indeed bad. If so, I suspect there isn't much I can do after 4.5 years, and I now have no real use for another one, so I'll have to forget about it.

In APS-C I got sharp photos with it corner to corner at f/4. Then just one stop made the corners sharp at FF. So it wasn't all bad.

I've just tested the D FA 24-70mm f/2.8 against both the DA* 55mm and the D FA 28-105mm, all at 55mm.

My conclusion, based on my copies of all these lenses, is:

The 24-70mm is good in the corners at f/2.8 on the K-1 at about 55mm. Far better than DA* 55mm at f/2.8. If light levels or depth of field demands it, I'll happily use the 24-70mm wide open at this part of the focal length range.

My test suggests that the 28-105mm has a maximum aperture of f/4.5 at 55mm, so it can't be compared with the 24-70mm anywhere near the latter's maximum aperture.

Stopped down to f/3.5, the 24-70mm lens (at 55mm) is better in the corners than the DA* 55mm is at f/5.6, or the 28-105mm (at 55mm) is at f/5.6. It justifies its size and weight where I'm not having to carry other heavy lenses around, (and in my opinion justifies its cost).

When the weight and size of the D FA 24-70mm are not a problem, it is the mid-range zoom I'll use. It remains to be seen whether there will ever be cases where having it on the K-1 "allows" me to be parted from the lovely 28-105mm for a short time!

So my DA* 55mm has too much stacked against it. Sharpness (for one reason or another), and lowish-light working of the 24-70mm used at f/2.8. I'm personally talking about the K-1 here, so with its "quiet" (opposite of "noisy") sensor and 5-stop SR, I think shooting at f/2.8 will be sufficient for me, before I use flash.