where is the 55-300mm WR? WR in general

mano · 10-01-2010, 11:52 PM

Count me in on the people waiting for a 55-300 WR.
Currently I'm wondering if I should get the non WR lens or wait a bit longer. What do you pentaxians with more experience with the company think. Will there be any more lens announcements this year or early next year?

knoxploration · 10-02-2010, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by illdefined

it would be the perfect match for the new 18-135mm WR. the 55-200mm WR isn't long enough to consider carrying it as another lens.

Agree completely. If I could choose only one consumer-grade lens for the WR treatment, it'd be the 55-300. I've actually been holding off on buying the non-WR variant ever since I got my K-7, because I know with my luck, the moment I bought it I'd find out I should've waited. Although conversely, with my luck the very fact I've waited will mean they never add WR to the 55-300. ;-)

Could it be that lens has some particular challenge that prevents it being adequately sealed? Too great an extension, perhaps, making it more likely that water will be ingested as the lens is zoomed back and forth?

Originally posted by Wololo

@illdefined

Here is what you need:

120-300mm F2.8 EX DG APO HSM - Telephoto Zoom Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com

Unfortunately no k-mount yet.

How is that remotely comparable to a weather-sealed 55-300? One's a lightweight, affordable f/4-5.8 consumer travel zoom, the other's a heavy, expensive, constant aperture lens designed for maximum image quality.

Compared to the existing (non-WR) 55-300, the f/2.8 Sigma is almost six times the weight, has less than half the zoom range, and costs almost nine times as much. Even if we assume a WR 55-300 would be a little heavier and more expensive, the difference is still vast.

Edit: Oh, and I forgot to note -- it also fails the main criterion set by illdefined, in that despite the mammoth weight and cost, it's not weather-sealed.

This isn't comparing apples to oranges. It's comparing apples to lunar landers. ;-)

vk4akp · 10-02-2010, 10:30 AM

+1 on the 55-300mm WR.

I've been holding off hoping Pentax will release a WR version of this lens.

But please it must have quick shift focus.

I so hate the new low cost DAL lens's purely because they lack quick shift focus.

.-.-.

wowtip · 10-02-2010, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by illdefined

it would be the perfect match for the new 18-135mm WR. the 55-200mm WR isn't long enough to consider carrying it as another lens.

+1, as I have said before, the day they release the 55-300 WR is the day I pre-order a copy.

**Clarkey** · 10-02-2010, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by vk4akp

+1 on the 55-300mm WR.

I've been holding off hoping Pentax will release a WR version of this lens.

But please it must have quick shift focus.

I so hate the new low cost DAL lens's purely because they lack quick shift focus.

.-.-.

The currently available DA (not L) version has quick shift.

I asked a pentax rep whether a WR 55-300 was possible two years ago at a photo show and was told this was a prime candidate for WR treatment. Nothing has happened. There were other suggestions here that a cam design for a zoom lens could not be weatherproofed.

My one hope is that the (not) SDM focussing mechanism announced in the 18-135 needs to be incorporated, and that it is upcoming.

We shall see.

**Rondec** · 10-02-2010, 01:52 PM

I think this would be a tough lens to weather seal because it has a double barreled design with a whole lot of extension on the inner barrel. The DA 16-50 and 60-250 are double barreled, but they don't extend much at all compared to the DA 55-300. The safest thing would be to make it an internal zoom, but that would raise the cost significantly.

the swede · 10-02-2010, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Rondec

I think this would be a tough lens to weather seal because it has a double barreled design with a whole lot of extension on the inner barrel. The DA 16-50 and 60-250 are double barreled, but they don't extend much at all compared to the DA 55-300. The safest thing would be to make it an internal zoom, but that would raise the cost significantly.

The barrel in the D-FA 100 Macro WR extends quite a bit to.

If i look at my copy of the Macro WR, i can clearly se the "gasket" or sealing touching the inner barrel, when extending it. Theres probably a sealing behind that one to.

Its possible to acomplish imo.....

10-01-2010, 11:52 PM	#16
mano Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 151	What are the chances for new lens announcements? Count me in on the people waiting for a 55-300 WR. Currently I'm wondering if I should get the non WR lens or wait a bit longer. What do you pentaxians with more experience with the company think. Will there be any more lens announcements this year or early next year?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
General Talk Guidelines	Adam	General Talk	2	07-14-2010 04:44 PM
I have a ... general question(I think)	mdaaug58	Photographic Technique	3	01-21-2010 07:42 PM
A general question and Need help	Atindra	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	05-11-2009 10:17 PM
A general Q about upgrading to * or ltd	emr	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	26	02-19-2009 05:30 AM
A general Question...	meyjo	Photographic Technique	15	01-31-2008 06:36 AM

10-02-2010, 08:06 AM	#17
knoxploration Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 846	Originally posted by illdefined it would be the perfect match for the new 18-135mm WR. the 55-200mm WR isn't long enough to consider carrying it as another lens. Agree completely. If I could choose only one consumer-grade lens for the WR treatment, it'd be the 55-300. I've actually been holding off on buying the non-WR variant ever since I got my K-7, because I know with my luck, the moment I bought it I'd find out I should've waited. Although conversely, with my luck the very fact I've waited will mean they never add WR to the 55-300. ;-) Could it be that lens has some particular challenge that prevents it being adequately sealed? Too great an extension, perhaps, making it more likely that water will be ingested as the lens is zoomed back and forth? Originally posted by Wololo @illdefined Here is what you need: 120-300mm F2.8 EX DG APO HSM - Telephoto Zoom Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com Unfortunately no k-mount yet. How is that remotely comparable to a weather-sealed 55-300? One's a lightweight, affordable f/4-5.8 consumer travel zoom, the other's a heavy, expensive, constant aperture lens designed for maximum image quality. Compared to the existing (non-WR) 55-300, the f/2.8 Sigma is almost six times the weight, has less than half the zoom range, and costs almost nine times as much. Even if we assume a WR 55-300 would be a little heavier and more expensive, the difference is still vast. Edit: Oh, and I forgot to note -- it also fails the main criterion set by illdefined, in that despite the mammoth weight and cost, it's not weather-sealed. This isn't comparing apples to oranges. It's comparing apples to lunar landers. ;-)

10-02-2010, 10:30 AM	#18
vk4akp Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Ipswich / Qld / Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 133	+1 on the 55-300mm WR. I've been holding off hoping Pentax will release a WR version of this lens. But please it must have quick shift focus. I so hate the new low cost DAL lens's purely because they lack quick shift focus. .-.-.

10-02-2010, 10:34 AM	#19
wowtip Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: West coast Photos: Gallery Posts: 261	Originally posted by illdefined it would be the perfect match for the new 18-135mm WR. the 55-200mm WR isn't long enough to consider carrying it as another lens. +1, as I have said before, the day they release the 55-300 WR is the day I pre-order a copy.

10-02-2010, 11:13 AM	#20
Clarkey Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Brampton, ON, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,456	Originally posted by vk4akp +1 on the 55-300mm WR. I've been holding off hoping Pentax will release a WR version of this lens. But please it must have quick shift focus. I so hate the new low cost DAL lens's purely because they lack quick shift focus. .-.-. The currently available DA (not L) version has quick shift. I asked a pentax rep whether a WR 55-300 was possible two years ago at a photo show and was told this was a prime candidate for WR treatment. Nothing has happened. There were other suggestions here that a cam design for a zoom lens could not be weatherproofed. My one hope is that the (not) SDM focussing mechanism announced in the 18-135 needs to be incorporated, and that it is upcoming. We shall see.

10-02-2010, 01:52 PM	#21
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	I think this would be a tough lens to weather seal because it has a double barreled design with a whole lot of extension on the inner barrel. The DA 16-50 and 60-250 are double barreled, but they don't extend much at all compared to the DA 55-300. The safest thing would be to make it an internal zoom, but that would raise the cost significantly.

10-02-2010, 02:17 PM	#22
the swede Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 2,310	Originally posted by Rondec I think this would be a tough lens to weather seal because it has a double barreled design with a whole lot of extension on the inner barrel. The DA 16-50 and 60-250 are double barreled, but they don't extend much at all compared to the DA 55-300. The safest thing would be to make it an internal zoom, but that would raise the cost significantly. The barrel in the D-FA 100 Macro WR extends quite a bit to. If i look at my copy of the Macro WR, i can clearly se the "gasket" or sealing touching the inner barrel, when extending it. Theres probably a sealing behind that one to. Its possible to acomplish imo.....