[normhead]

A line up is a lineup because it covers many bases and use cases.

So does this mean we are going to get an analysis of what cases and uses each system can handle?

Personally, I have my 55 1.4 which has never been used in the field at ƒ1.4, and a Sigma 24mm 2.8 which has never been used at ƒ2.8.

By having such a slow *and* apsc line up Pentax becomes unsuitable for quite a few photographers.

And become quite acceptable and preferable for quite a few photographers, because of the quality of the slower lighter lenses.
It gets tiring seeing these kind of "glass is half empty arguments" coming form people who don' realize the glass is also half full.

There is no use of a fast lens at wide or near wide apertures that doesn't produce DoF problems for the majority of photographic endeavours, not mention the edge sharpness and CA issues. Fast lenses are not all they are cracked up to be. I rarely use mine. So, I'm not going to entertain the "quite a few photographers" thing until it's quantified. My suspicion is a lot of people buy fast lenses because they are sucked in by the hype, and then rarely use them for the things they think they are buying them for. I'm not willing to concede any assumptions about how many photographers need more than a couple fast lenses. It could be a lot, it could be a very small percentage. I have one, the DA 55 1.4 which I love, and which is a long enough focal length to be able to actually do narrow DoF. But what would the uses be for more? Whatever they are, they aren't universal, and in the overall scheme of things, probably pretty rare.

Pentax did think WR in primes is important enough to include it in the new 21mm.

Pentax is making every new lens WR. Whether that is a general policy or an admission that primes need to be WR is unknown, it may just be a general policy.

I doubt it was the same people saying it was unimportant in other manufacturers and important here. Pentax itself uses weather sealing as a big selling point, so I wouldn't go too far down the road of saying it's not important.

Oh ya, it was. The same people who come here and troll about their love for other brands. Brand loyalists are completely two faced. It's only good if their brand has it. I'm trying to remember when the last lens Pentax released a lens for either FF or APS-c that wasn't WR. Nothing is coming to me. Even the lowly DA 18-50 is WR.

It must have been the old 18-55 or one of the early 55-300s. It's been a while.

---

Last edited by normhead; 02-11-2021 at 10:32 AM.

[ThorSanchez]

Pentax is making every new lens WR. Whether that is a general policy or an admission that primes need to be WR is unknown, it may just be a general policy.

Strange that they'd do that knowing full well you could get equivalent functionality out of an umbrella or a trash bag. But I'm sure they know their requirements better than us.

[gatorguy]

I own only three "fast" lenses where the benefits are fully realized, regularly shot wide-open or close to it: An FA85 1.4, a *55 1.4 and a Sigma 18-35 1.8. Two are for portraiture while the zoom is for indoor events. All three therefor have specific personal uses where being a "fast" lens is beneficial to me. Otherwise I'm with Norm in that generally all the others are rarely shot wide-open anyway even if some might be considered fast.. My 12-24 F4 is preferred for the landscapes and architecture I have it for and picked up before the much faster Sigma 18-35 on my APS-C's, The results from it are steller, and rarely shot even at that relatively slow F4.

As Norm says, much of the attraction of those higher-priced fast lenses can be attributed to marketing in my opinion. I don't believe a large percentage of shooters really have a need for .95-1.8 fast lenses but reviewers make 'em sound so essential.

[normhead]

Strange that they'd do that knowing full well you could get equivalent functionality out of an umbrella or a trash bag. But I'm sure they know their requirements better than us.

It's a marketing point. All new Pentax lenses are WR. People with old non WR lenses now have to upgrade. And because so much of my favourite photography is on canoe trips , weeks at time in the bush, WR guards against accidents. I came home from one trip with 2 non WR lenses that had to be disassembled and dried out. Not any more.

For studio shooters, event shooters and indoor shooters WR is not essential. In 55 years shooting, I've never had a lens immersed in water in doors. For us outdoor shooters, it's a big selling point. Besides those water seals make even cheap lenses feel smoother.

My selling point or Pentax would be "rugged cameras for rugged people." It's not Pentax's fault most of the world are softies.

I'd tell you how many tis my DA*60-250 has been dropped or fallen off a car seat but it might make it hard to sell if I ever decided to get rid of it. It never stopped taking pictures.

---

Last edited by normhead; 02-11-2021 at 12:04 PM.

[ZombieArmy]

My selling point or Pentax would be "rugged cameras for rugged people." It's not Pentax's fault most of the world are softies.

Reminds me of the guy around here who would spend months on snowy mountains or rainy jungles with his K-1 and K-3 just slung on his back with no other protection. Pentax cameras really let you have peace of mind.

[angerdan]

My only complaint is the DA lineup lacks WR on most primes.
Would love to see the limiteds weather sealed at some point.

You're right, 4 of 18 (22%) DA primes are WR/AW.
Weather Sealed Prime DA, DA L Series Lenses | PentaxForums.com

Beside primes, the only Limited zoom lens and newest lens design of the Limiteds is WR:
HD Pentax-DA 20-40mm F2.8-4 Limited DC WR Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[house]

Primes are as important as zooms to weather seal. Some people have used only one focal length for decades. I search out cover and before that consider if I really need to change lenses when it's wet outside.

[Fogel70]

Fun fact: the Olympus 300/2.8, which was made for the 4/3 mount, is about 900 g heaver and 3 cm longer than the latest version of the Canon 300/2.8.

And the Pentax FA* 300/4 for 645 is smaller than Olympus 300/4 for MFT. But the Olympus lens is 5 grams ligher.
Even M* 300/4 for 67 is smaller than the Olympus 300/4 for MFT. But the 67 lens is 175 grams heavier.

The smaller size on the medium format lenses has mostly to do with the longer register distance, but it still show how little size and weight differs between formats on long focal length.

[surfar]

Over 140mm I see not one 2.8 lens.

Thats because the 200mm is F2.

---------- Post added 02-12-21 at 08:20 AM ----------

WR designations

The road map doesnt list that the 2 lenses being released this year 18mm and 70-300mm will both be WR.

[normhead]

Thats because the 200mm is F2.

---------- Post added 02-12-21 at 08:20 AM ----------



The road map doesnt list that the 2 lenses being released this year 18mm and 70-300mm will both be WR.

Seriously? Are we that cantankerous?

[3by2]

Well we haven't had 10 years from the op but APS-c seems to have carved out a niche, FF is definitely growing, micro 4/3rds looks wobbly, i suppose the biggest surprise is the frantic scramble to mirrorless. Pentax still offers everything I need at a price I need it, it remains to be seen if that will remain the case in a falling market.

I do now have two wr lenses but for years I mountaineered and climbed with an Om10 and 35-70 zoom. I even bounced it off a rock when it came out my hip case and by a miracle my climbing partner, below me, caught it as he looked around. The next bounce was 3000ft down, that was on a winter traverse of the Aonach Eagach, terrible weather, all the pictures were indistinct figures in the gloom, wr wouldn't have helped there at all. I like the LTD's, if they make them bigger to add wr and a non screw drive that removes some of the appeal of two or three of them taking hardly any room in your bag/pocket/lunchbox/whatever, though I did read one reviewer who exclaimed 'is it the 80's!' when he heard the noise they made focusing.

[surfar]

Seriously? Are we that cantankerous?

No Wally,just thought your glasses needed an update.

[normhead]

No Wally,just thought your glasses needed an update.

And that led you to pronounce that two lenses no one knows anything about aren't WR?

[surfar]

And that led you to pronounce that two lenses no one knows anything about aren't WR?

Very logical nonsense there Wally,If you comprehension skills are passable.READ what I posted.

The road map doesnt list that the 2 lenses being released this year 18mm and 70-300mm will both be WR.

Ive seen both lenses, they were unveiled at the Fuji Summit January 27th.

[ThorSanchez]

I'd be much more interested in a comparison that didn't compress the field compared by using selective criteria that boost one line up over another. WR is nice to have, not have to have. A plastic shopping bag turns any set up into WR.

It's a marketing point. All new Pentax lenses are WR. People with old non WR lenses now have to upgrade. And because so much of my favourite photography is on canoe trips , weeks at time in the bush, WR guards against accidents. I came home from one trip with 2 non WR lenses that had to be disassembled and dried out. Not any more.

For studio shooters, event shooters and indoor shooters WR is not essential. In 55 years shooting, I've never had a lens immersed in water in doors. For us outdoor shooters, it's a big selling point. Besides those water seals make even cheap lenses feel smoother.

My selling point or Pentax would be "rugged cameras for rugged people." It's not Pentax's fault most of the world are softies.

I'd tell you how many tis my DA*60-250 has been dropped or fallen off a car seat but it might make it hard to sell if I ever decided to get rid of it. It never stopped taking pictures.

I suppose you disagree with the guy who made the first post claiming WR isn't a big deal that can be replicated with a shopping bag.