[legacyb4]

Happens all the time when I shoot my son's soccer games up here in the PNW where we play through the winter...

[ve2vfd]

What is that brand or specific name of that raincoat if I want to look at JCpenny or Macys ?

Thats a 3 ply gore tex shell... it's a waterproof breathable un-insulated shell.

That particular model you'll only find at Mountain Equipment Coop stores here in Canada and it's worth around $350, but specialty outdoors stores in the US like REI and Cabellas have similar products.

Pat

[photoleet]

That particular model you'll only find at Mountain Equipment Coop stores here in Canada and it's worth around $350, but specialty outdoors stores in the US like REI and Cabellas have similar products.

Pat

cool thanks!

[Mehlsack]

Cold and Wet

Really cold and Wet

[obiwandado]

Mehlsack, that's why I ditched my 60D in favor of a K-5. That picture is way beyond cool!

[davidt]

Sorry to disappoint you guys but I must report some Fungus in my DA* WR lenses.

[Docrwm]

Sorry to disappoint you guys but I must report some Fungus in my DA* WR lenses.

Sorry to hear about that but you've gotten some great tips from those who responded to your thread.

[davidt]

Sorry to hear about that but you've gotten some great tips from those who responded to your thread.

True. Still it's a sad situation with no real solution.

[ve2vfd]

Sorry to disappoint you guys but I must report some Fungus in my DA* WR lenses.

Oh no...

But after you venture out in wet conditions with your setup, do you dry everything thoroughly inside and out?

After that pic was taken and I was done taking photos outside, I dried everything with paper towels and then let my gear air dry a few hours with lenses off the camera. It's important that you not store WR lenses attached to the camera to give a chance of escape to any moisture that may have entered it or humidity condensing inside it.

I also ziplock my gear when coming in from outside in winter to avoid condensation inside the camera and lenses.

Pat

edit: Just read your fungus thread, gread advice there!

[reeftool]

Sorry to disappoint you guys but I must report some Fungus in my DA* WR lenses.

Fungus can happen in a lens that has never been outside. Fungus spores are microscopic and are everywhere and in certain conditions, will grow on anything. I learned a lesson many years ago after having a lens get fungus after being kept in a closed drawer. It had never been wet. I kept my camera gear there to be out of the way of my young kids. I now store my lenses where they get good air circulation and some daylight. A WR lens could quite possibly be more fungus prone since the weather sealing could hold humid air inside the lens for a longer period of time after the camera has been moved to a dryer environment. That's just a thought, nothing technical to support that. Also , consider that most if not all lenses for every camera are made in the very humid and fungus prone climates of Asia and have been warehoused and shipped in a very humid, hostile climate long before it ever reached the shelves of the air conditioned camera store. The potential for fungus has been there since day one, and all it needs are the right conditions to grow.

[PALADIN85020]

Haha, this makes me so proud!

I'm debating getting a 18-250 or 18-200 zoom vs a 18-135 WR. I think the WR might win in the end.

I own both the 18-250 and the 18-135WR. The 18-250 is heavy, bulky, has lens creep when held up or down, and is used only for shots where I really need extended telephoto reach. The 18-135WR is my "most used" lens. I took it as my only lens on a trip to Hawaii last summer, and found it worked out extremely well. Good range, and the constant rain in Hawaii didn't faze it. I found the range on the lens satisfactory for about 90% of the shots I took there, and hungered for a longer-range zoom only a few times. With the resolution of the 16 mp K-5 that was no big deal, as I could crop a 135mm picture to simulate the effect of a 250mm picture and still get acceptable results. The versatility and utility of the 18-135mm is hard to beat. I keep it constantly on my camera for instant use, not needing to change out lenses and perhaps introduce some dust into the interior of the camera. Only rarely will I switch to a prime 50mm 1.4 or the 18-250 for specialized applications.

John

[alexeyga]

Sorry to disappoint you guys but I must report some Fungus in my DA* WR lenses.

At last!!! I've been actually expecting much more posts like these given how actively Pentax community is marveling the WR and running around in rain with their WR'ed stuff. A great example why Nikon and Canon never pushed WR as a selling feature. It's there on Pro-level bodies and lenses, but it's rather unclear to the public. Why? Because the public is a bunch of monkeys - you tell them that their gear is WEATHER-RESISTANT - they take it as WATERPROOF and start bathing with the gear!!!

Reality is such that WEATHER-RESISTANCE is nothing but gear's ability to take an occasional splash or two without frying the internals, but it doesn't imply that you don't have to cover your gear from rain anymore!

Reality is such that water is a very peculiar bit*h which always finds a way in. You guys probably really like how smooth zooming and AF rings are on DA* lenses? Well, with real water-tight seals, these rings wouldn't turn with any reasonable amount of force and even then it wouldn't be 100% water-tight. Can't even imagine what's the water-penetration %ge with the current seals is, but you can be sure - it's leaking all over. Especially on WR'ed lenses with extendable lens barrel(s).

So go on!!! Keep on showing us pics of you with your beautiful Pentax gear under the rain. You'll be more than welcome to join "OMG!!! My WR lenses are full of fungus!!!!" - club in a few years depending on how humid it is where you live.

[Docrwm]

At last!!! I've been actually expecting much more posts like these given how actively Pentax community is marveling the WR and running around in rain with their WR'ed stuff. A great example why Nikon and Canon never pushed WR as a selling feature. It's there on Pro-level bodies and lenses, but it's rather unclear to the public. Why? Because the public is a bunch of monkeys - you tell them that their gear is WEATHER-RESISTANT - they take it as WATERPROOF and start bathing with the gear!!!

Reality is such that WEATHER-RESISTANCE is nothing but gear's ability to take an occasional splash or two without frying the internals, but it doesn't imply that you don't have to cover your gear from rain anymore!

Reality is such that water is a very peculiar bit*h which always finds a way in. You guys probably really like how smooth zooming and AF rings are on DA* lenses? Well, with real water-tight seals, these rings wouldn't turn with any reasonable amount of force and even then it wouldn't be 100% water-tight. Can't even imagine what's the water-penetration %ge with the current seals is, but you can be sure - it's leaking all over. Especially on WR'ed lenses with extendable lens barrel(s).

So go on!!! Keep on showing us pics of you with your beautiful Pentax gear under the rain. You'll be more than welcome to join "OMG!!! My WR lenses are full of fungus!!!!" - club in a few years depending on how humid it is where you live.

I only have one thing to say - have you tried decaf, seriously.

[JinDesu]

So go on!!! Keep on showing us pics of you with your beautiful Pentax gear under the rain. You'll be more than welcome to join "OMG!!! My WR lenses are full of fungus!!!!" - club in a few years depending on how humid it is where you live.

Or you could just take the extra precautions to dry out the lenses, store in sealed bags with dessicants, and keep them in a warm and dry area (using a heat lamp like some people do, or store them where the sun shines like I do).

[eddie1960]

Bonjour,

I really like my DA 18-55 WR, but the DA 18-135 WR is a bit "too rich" your my tastes/budget, as much as I would like to have it ... thus, I think that I will soon supplement with a DA 50-200 WR.

Has anyone used this lens extensively and what do you think about it ? ... I'd like the extra range beyond 135mm and I tend to shoot a lot in the 100 to 200 range. I have read the PF in-depth review plus the users' reviews as well, thus I have a good idea of the "limitations " of this lens.

There's a 50€ instant in-store rebate until the end of March at Phox Photo, plus I have another additional rebate voucher which would reduce the retail price by 30% ... thus I think that I'll go for it, because the price would be less than I could get it out of the States, etc.

Any input would be appreciated ... merci d'avance, J Frog

I like my 18-55 WR as well and though i shoot primes almost exclusively I always pack it when i travel in case i hit a bad patch of weather and it it looks crap here it goes in the bag for the day

I really wish there were more WR primes, the only one that comes close to my shooting style is the 55, i wish there was a UWA or a decent Wide WR. It would be great if the DA LTd series was WR or if a Reworked DFA ltd trio came out in WR (with an addition model in the 21-24 range). I realise changing lenses kills the WR idea a bit, but I can easily shoot with one prime for a day but it needs to be wider than 55