[Clavius]

My K-5 with 18-135 WR combo failed miserably in an every so slight drizzle. More like mist then rain. But on the other hand my other K-5 with DA 15 ltd survived accidentally being dunked and submerged completely in salty water for a short time and still looks and works perfectly. There is a whole lot of luck, bad luck and other factors putting in their weight into the scale. I think the WR issues are more connected with QC issues then with WR itself. And we have to admit, Pentax is known for QC issues. And I think maybe the seals can lose quality over time too. Maybe they dry out? Or stuff can get between those it.

On the other hand, I recently used my Sony Experia to film behind the rocks of my 600ltr saltwater aquarium without any problems. I needed to locate a Mantis schrimp that came with my live rock. It took almost an hour. A phone that came FREE with my mobile phone subscription. One funny feature is that it actually notifies the user on the screen when one of the seals is not in place.

[Vylen]

On the other hand, I recently used my Sony Experia to film behind the rocks of my 600ltr saltwater aquarium without any problems. I needed to locate a Mantis schrimp that came with my live rock. It took almost an hour. A phone that came FREE with my mobile phone subscription. One funny feature is that it actually notifies the user on the screen when one of the seals is not in place.

Phones from Japan are a special case - some of their feature set is based around natural disasters. The majority of them are water and dust proof as well as have television receivers - the latter being useful for viewing the latest news bulletins. This isn't even a recent thing either, back when everyone had clamshell phones they were built like this.

Sony just happened to have the epiphany that these types of phones (minus the tv receiver) would be popular outside of Japan.

[Mr Spocko]

If you stand in the middle of the road you get hit by traffic coming both directions! (yes a well known quote)
Nobody else has a 20-40mm f2.8-f4, because not that many people want it, range is small, it's not wide enough and not long enough and not fast enough at the top end (for the asking price).
I'm sure the lens will be nicely made, and sharp enough..but who cares? Half the point of a zoom is convenience, this doesn't have that to offer.

I get the 35-70mm f4 35mm era lenses they made sense to a point for 35mm cameras, thing is they didn't cost £850 either!
I don't really see the point of this. I also don't like the red ring Canon L series copy attempt either it's cheesy and predictable. Anyway on it's own a lens few will want as the price is high, convenience is low

[Rondec]

My K-5 with 18-135 WR combo failed miserably in an every so slight drizzle. More like mist then rain. But on the other hand my other K-5 with DA 15 ltd survived accidentally being dunked and submerged completely in salty water for a short time and still looks and works perfectly. There is a whole lot of luck, bad luck and other factors putting in their weight into the scale. I think the WR issues are more connected with QC issues then with WR itself. And we have to admit, Pentax is known for QC issues. And I think maybe the seals can lose quality over time too. Maybe they dry out? Or stuff can get between those it.

On the other hand, I recently used my Sony Experia to film behind the rocks of my 600ltr saltwater aquarium without any problems. I needed to locate a Mantis schrimp that came with my live rock. It took almost an hour. A phone that came FREE with my mobile phone subscription. One funny feature is that it actually notifies the user on the screen when one of the seals is not in place.

I have used the 18-135 in rain without problems. My brother and father own this lens as well and have had no trouble with the weather sealing. I am inclined to believe that you have a bad copy and I would have turned it in to Pentax.

As for QC issues. These are a product of the age we live in and neither Nikon, Sony, or Canon are immune to them at this point either. You make cameras to a price point, assuming a certain percentage of poor quality items will make it to market.

[ogl]

If you stand in the middle of the road you get hit by traffic coming both directions! (yes a well known quote)
Nobody else has a 20-40mm f2.8-f4, because not that many people want it, range is small, it's not wide enough and not long enough and not fast enough at the top end (for the asking price).

It's ideal focal range for me for travel and street photo - I don't care about apertures - I need lens to make sharp photos at f5.6-f8.0 and not bad center sharpness at opened apertures.

I uses 18, 24, 28 and 40 mm lenses now. 80%of photos are made at 28-60 mm (FF equiv.). I think that there are a lot of people who like this focal range.

[Heie]

On the other end of the scale we have the WR test done by Heie. Cover the whole thing in desert sand, and then take it into the shower for a light rinse.

Ahem....the sand in Afghanistan is more akin to talcum powder

[Clavius]

I have used the 18-135 in rain without problems. My brother and father own this lens as well and have had no trouble with the weather sealing. I am inclined to believe that you have a bad copy and I would have turned it in to Pentax.

Oh no, it was in fact the K-5 body itself that was permitting moist to enter. The 18-135 is still in operation. It's my workhorse that gets all the beating when the pretty lenses need to stay safely tucked away. I merely added it to the post to make it clear that I was using a fully WR body and lens combination.

As for QC issues. These are a product of the age we live in and neither Nikon, Sony, or Canon are immune to them at this point either. You make cameras to a price point, assuming a certain percentage of poor quality items will make it to market.

So true, Pentax with the sensor stains and falling nobs, Nikon with the oil spats and Canon with the wonky mirror. Where people are working there's bound to be splinters. It's not about who has the least problems, but about how they go about solving them.

[rbefly]

If you stand in the middle of the road you get hit by traffic coming both directions! (yes a well known quote)
Nobody else has a 20-40mm f2.8-f4, because not that many people want it, range is small, it's not wide enough and not long enough and not fast enough at the top end (for the asking price).
I'm sure the lens will be nicely made, and sharp enough..but who cares? Half the point of a zoom is convenience, this doesn't have that to offer.

I get the 35-70mm f4 35mm era lenses they made sense to a point for 35mm cameras, thing is they didn't cost £850 either!

Mr Spocko,
I don't recall anyone suggesting 'standing in the middle of the road', but if you're referring to my statement calling the DA Ltd zoom 'a compromise', all zooms are a compromise. Focal lengths, range, aperture, size + weight, price.

'Nobody else has a 20-40mm.' So what? Is there a rule somewhere that all zooms must have exactly the same focal range as the existing ones? Boy, these new-fangled ideas sure are confusing, aren't they?
As to whether anyone will want it, I'm pretty sure you don't. That's one. How about if we wait until it's actually released before deciding, based upon real sales figures, you know, facts, before we decide that?

'Range is small' Huh? The range is 2X, roughly the same as the 16-35 (Nikon and Canon), 17-35 (Nikon), 18-35 (Nikon), 24-50 (several makers) and probably many others, including 3rd party manufacturers. 2X zooms are generally considered better (smaller, sharper, lighter) than 3X or higher ratios.

'Not wide enough'. Gee, the DA 21mm Ltd seems to be a pretty popular focal length. 24mm is a very prized FL in APS-C also.

'Not long enough and not fast enough at the top end' Well, you're now batting 100% in that paragraph. The only other lens offered in my first post that goes to 40mm is the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 USM. Price $840 USD. It's f/4.0 @ 40mm, same as the DA Ltd. So much for 'not fast enough at the top end'. All the others go only to 35mm, which, I agree, isn't long enough. Yes, the DA Ltd is $160 more than the Canon. It's also f/2.8 at 20mm, the Canon is f/4.0.

'Half the point of a zoom is convenience, this doesn't have that to offer' Huh? Why is the DA Ltd's 2X zoom range less convenient than anyone else's 2X zoom?
To substitute a zoom for a 21mm, 24mm, 28mm, 31mm, 35mm and 40mm is inconvenient somehow?

'I get the 35-70mm f/4 35mm era lenses they made sense to a point for 35mm cameras.'
To achieve the field of view of a 35-70mm (film era or 35mm) in APS-C format would be roughly a 24-47mm zoom. The DA Ltd is 20-40mm Most people already have a 'fast fifty'. Make sense yet?

'Thing is they didn't cost E850 either!'
Right. An inexpensive kit 35-70mm f/4.0 zoom from the 1980's was less expensive (then), than an HD DA Limited 20-40 f/2.8-4.0 top-quality zoom in today's money. You are absolutely correct. TFS.
Ron

[Pål Jensen]

80%of photos are made at 28-60 mm (FF equiv.). I think that there are a lot of people who like this focal range.

About 80% of anybodys photos is made in that range...

[nixcamic]

About 80% of anybodys photos is made in that range...

Most of mine were at either 18mm or 50ish APS-C. Until I fell in love with my $5 28mm lens and got a DA70. Now they're all at 28mm or 70mm. I would still use the heck out of this lens if I had it, assuming it preforms anything like the other limiteds.

[aurele]

If you stand in the middle of the road you get hit by traffic coming both directions! (yes a well known quote)
Nobody else has a 20-40mm f2.8-f4, because not that many people want it, range is small, it's not wide enough and not long enough and not fast enough at the top end (for the asking price).

your statement clearly show your not the target of this lens

Pentax is a small company (in term of sale in the photo world) and the only reason of it's survival is because it's different from Canikon. If the made zoom like the big two, then, why go Pentax ? no reason as they would be another canikon offering. And that is even more true considering 3rd party lenses providers like Tammy and Sigma.

i think i could sell my DA 40 for this DA ltd 20-40, that's why :
i mainly shoot party or climbing and both require :
- a top wide quality (but not too wide, nobody wants to see its face deformed), and a very short tele.
- a WR is a real plus (you know people splattering cocktail on your camera, or small drops of water coming from the cliff, fog from the forest, and so on)
- (a bit conditionnal for now) a very good picture quality right wide open (yes, i prefer to bump the iso and have all the face in focus and crisps, than low noise and nothing in focus).
- light setup.

You see ? this zoom really target people like me that need light setup, high quality, and gear for tough place.

And if i get this DA ltd, i won't take any 18-55WR in the kit as i have other WR lens on the upper side (or you can crop a very little bit to get the same as 50mm for example).

[monochrome]

If you stand in the middle of the road you get hit by traffic coming both directions! (yes a well known quote)
Nobody else has a 20-40mm f2.8-f4, because not that many people want it, range is small, it's not wide enough and not long enough and not fast enough at the top end (for the asking price).
I'm sure the lens will be nicely made, and sharp enough..but who cares? Half the point of a zoom is convenience, this doesn't have that to offer.

I know it isn't cool to quote my own post.

I think this is a lens that cries out for a prime on either end (15, 20~40, 70).

I can carry that kit and a K3 all day long. I can't carry all the DA Limiteds.

If I choose to shoot with DA and FA Limiteds because I want to, and I like to, and the IQ is better than ordinary DA lneses, and I can afford them - then I'll buy this lens and ignore the middle primes. And I'm not nobody.

Just sayin'

[Kunzite]

I think this is a lens that cries out for a prime on either end (15, 20~40, 70).

Stop this; you're giving me ideas. Expensive ideas. Must... resist...

I think I said it already - if I'll stay APS-C I'd want this zoom, because it's perfect for me: reasonably fast for a zoom, compact, light and it looks fantastic (well, that's more of a bonus than a necessary feature).
If I'll go FF (provided that Pentax will make one) I'd want something equivalent for it.

You see, Mr Spocko, there are people who cares about such products.

[THoog]

I think this is a lens that cries out for a prime on either end (15, 20~40, 70).

I was thinking the same thing (albeit on a K-01).

[aurele]

it's interesting to see this lens grow in everyone mind