Why no WR limited lens for the K-7?

**DAKS** · 09-02-2009, 08:26 AM

I've read elswhere that the size of the K-7 was at least partially designed because it is such a good fit for the Limited lens.
So It would seem ideal to have some primes that are WR (other than the DA*55).
For example, I'd love to have the DA35 in a WR version.
What do you think? I haven't seen any hints that such WR primes are in the roadmap.
thanks,
David

scorpioh · 09-02-2009, 08:39 AM

WR is gonna add bulk and rubber. This is against the law of the limiteds.

Spock · 09-02-2009, 08:51 AM

Didn't seem to add bulk and weight to the WR lenses.

Miserere · 09-02-2009, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Spock

Didn't seem to add bulk and weight to the WR lenses.

I think it did add bulk, if not weight. Plus, the DA Ltds are built with a lot less leeway (as far as size is concerned) than are the WR kit lenses.

But, I'm sure a lot of people would happily give up a bit of Ltd size for weather-sealing.

.

**DAKS** · 09-02-2009, 03:51 PM

I for one would like a WR prime, at least in the "normal" range.
I'd give up a little bulk for that.
I don't expect a WR version of the 40 to stay that small, but the 35 macro would be a good candidate.

Andrew Faires · 09-02-2009, 04:12 PM

a WR 11mm f/4.0 limited would be a fun lens to try out so long as I could use my singh-ray polarizers with it, without vignetting (hint-hint, nudge, nudge)

Seriously though, I think the k-7 is influenced by the current DA ltd's and to some degree, the FA ltd's. but designed primarily for the DA* lenses. I could be wrong, but that's how it looks to me.

Spock · 09-02-2009, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Miserere

I think it did add bulk, if not weight.

Actually it was the other way around - WR added weight not bulk. ie. DA18-55ALII - 220g; DA18-55WR - 230g - same external dimensions.

JonPB · 09-03-2009, 12:03 AM

Limited lenses have all-metal construction and have tolerances too tight to allow weather sealing to be added. My guess is that plastic construction is more weather resistant than metal construction, due to temperature handling and corrosion resistance. Which is to say, I wouldn't expect Pentax to design future Limited lenses with weather sealing unless, perhaps, the rest of the lens lineup was already weather resistant.

scorpioh · 09-03-2009, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by JonPB

Limited lenses have all-metal construction and have tolerances too tight to allow weather sealing to be added. My guess is that plastic construction is more weather resistant than metal construction, due to temperature handling and corrosion resistance. Which is to say, I wouldn't expect Pentax to design future Limited lenses with weather sealing unless, perhaps, the rest of the lens lineup was already weather resistant.

I agree. If you want WR, DA* is your answer.

**DAKS** · 09-03-2009, 11:58 AM

I'm fine with DA*, but the only prime is the 55, so if Pentax is listening, how about one a little wider?

Adrian Owerko · 09-04-2009, 01:51 AM

Pentax should make a DA* 30mm f 1.2.. and a DA* 135 f 1.8 add the DA* 55mm f 1.4.. Pentax would have one hell of a WR prime line up (:

09-02-2009, 08:26 AM	#1
DAKS Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: McLean, VA Photos: Gallery Posts: 97	Why no WR limited lens for the K-7? I've read elswhere that the size of the K-7 was at least partially designed because it is such a good fit for the Limited lens. So It would seem ideal to have some primes that are WR (other than the DA*55). For example, I'd love to have the DA35 in a WR version. What do you think? I haven't seen any hints that such WR primes are in the roadmap. thanks, David

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Limited Lens?	budboyy2k	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	04-10-2010 01:14 PM
How about this lens, Pentax smcP DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited Lens	Softsoap	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	03-03-2010 12:49 PM
Limited or *DA Lens	tarponn22	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	09-25-2008 09:35 PM
(ask) how 'limited' Pentax Limited lens actually?	fearview	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	09-24-2008 06:35 AM
Limited lens: 70 vs 77	kpfeifle	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	10-24-2007 01:32 AM

09-02-2009, 08:39 AM	#2
scorpioh Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 182	WR is gonna add bulk and rubber. This is against the law of the limiteds.

09-02-2009, 08:51 AM	#3
Spock Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 674	Didn't seem to add bulk and weight to the WR lenses.

09-02-2009, 12:03 PM	#4
Miserere Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Boston Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,993	Originally posted by Spock Didn't seem to add bulk and weight to the WR lenses. I think it did add bulk, if not weight. Plus, the DA Ltds are built with a lot less leeway (as far as size is concerned) than are the WR kit lenses. But, I'm sure a lot of people would happily give up a bit of Ltd size for weather-sealing. .

09-02-2009, 03:51 PM	#5
DAKS Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: McLean, VA Photos: Gallery Posts: 97 Original Poster	I for one would like a WR prime, at least in the "normal" range. I'd give up a little bulk for that. I don't expect a WR version of the 40 to stay that small, but the 35 macro would be a good candidate.

09-02-2009, 04:12 PM	#6
Andrew Faires Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Ontario Posts: 744	a WR 11mm f/4.0 limited would be a fun lens to try out so long as I could use my singh-ray polarizers with it, without vignetting (hint-hint, nudge, nudge) Seriously though, I think the k-7 is influenced by the current DA ltd's and to some degree, the FA ltd's. but designed primarily for the DA* lenses. I could be wrong, but that's how it looks to me.

09-02-2009, 08:23 PM	#7
Spock Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 674	Originally posted by Miserere I think it did add bulk, if not weight. Actually it was the other way around - WR added weight not bulk. ie. DA18-55ALII - 220g; DA18-55WR - 230g - same external dimensions.

09-03-2009, 12:03 AM	#8
JonPB Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Portland, OR, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 430	Limited lenses have all-metal construction and have tolerances too tight to allow weather sealing to be added. My guess is that plastic construction is more weather resistant than metal construction, due to temperature handling and corrosion resistance. Which is to say, I wouldn't expect Pentax to design future Limited lenses with weather sealing unless, perhaps, the rest of the lens lineup was already weather resistant.

09-03-2009, 02:07 AM	#9
scorpioh Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 182	Originally posted by JonPB Limited lenses have all-metal construction and have tolerances too tight to allow weather sealing to be added. My guess is that plastic construction is more weather resistant than metal construction, due to temperature handling and corrosion resistance. Which is to say, I wouldn't expect Pentax to design future Limited lenses with weather sealing unless, perhaps, the rest of the lens lineup was already weather resistant. I agree. If you want WR, DA* is your answer.

09-03-2009, 11:58 AM	#10
DAKS Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: McLean, VA Photos: Gallery Posts: 97 Original Poster	I'm fine with DA*, but the only prime is the 55, so if Pentax is listening, how about one a little wider?

09-04-2009, 01:51 AM	#11
Adrian Owerko Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: South Australia Posts: 435	Pentax should make a DA* 30mm f 1.2.. and a DA* 135 f 1.8 add the DA* 55mm f 1.4.. Pentax would have one hell of a WR prime line up (: