Weather resistant lens question

ProgMtl · 03-30-2011, 07:39 AM

I currently own the K-x (with 18-55 & 50-200 lenses). My last few trips to Yosemite were met with heavy, wet snowfall while already there, resulting in not a whole lot of pictures being taken. My next trip will be in June when the waterfalls will be in full force after all the snow this year.

I'm saving up to get a K-7 (mainly because of the weather resistant specs, but for a few other reasons as well).

My question is: Would I benefit at all from obtaining the WR versions of the above lenses and using them with the K-x until I can afford the K-7 body?

Thanks for any input

**blackcloudbrew** · 03-30-2011, 08:29 AM

I think, the answer to that is that in terms of image quality, probably not but if having WR lenses is important to you with a WR body then yes, you would tend to benefit.

Honestly, unless you intend to really get things wet, WR is nice to have but simple management of camera in and out of a backpack (or keeping your camera under an arm, or inside a coat etc.) and a handy towel will serve you well for most situations. At falls in Yosemite like Bridalveil the spray can be dealt with by just camera management. It's more of a problem to keep the lens clear then damaging the camera IMHO.

I have shot in heavy rain with my K20 and DA* lenses (which are all WR) without worry but even when I did, I used an umbrella when I had the camera on a tripod. A lens hood is always a big help in wet conditions too.

All of that said, I can see having one camera/lens set up that's all WR just in case you want to be able to be out in the rain with out worry.

**crewl1** · 03-30-2011, 08:32 AM

The WR versions add the quickshift capability (once you try it you'll appreciate it) and come with hoods vs. the kit lenses. Image quality should be similar if not equal.

No benefit as far as taking picture in inclement weather as the camera will still be the weak point if it is not WR also.

**blackcloudbrew** · 03-30-2011, 09:31 AM

Ah, good point on the lens hoods and quick shift. My DA 18-50 and 50-200 were the original versions which came with both. Yes, both are necessary features.

sterretje · 03-30-2011, 10:02 PM

I agree with blackcloudbrew; I have used the FA31Ltd on a K5 in pouring rain about 3 months ago. Yes, it did worry me a bit but no bad effects have shown till now. I just wiped it dry with a hanky after each use. And next time, I will be a bit more prepared and add some extra protection by means of a plastic bag.

There was a post a couple of month ago where some people stated that they don't see WR as the primary line of defense but as a second line of defense.

Originally posted by crewl1

No benefit as far as taking picture in inclement weather as the camera will still be the weak point if it is not WR also.

OP is saving up for a K7

**Just1MoreDave** · 03-30-2011, 10:25 PM

The DA 18-55 WR is a bit cheaper if you get it with the K-7. When I was shopping last year, there weren't any package deals including other WR lenses. So maybe wait on the 18-55.

hcc · 03-31-2011, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by sterretje

There was a post a couple of month ago where some people stated that they don't see WR as the primary line of defense but as a second line of defense.

I have a K-7, and all my lenses are not WR. Yet I shoot often under the rain incl. rainstorms, in splash, spray, white waters, breaking waves... Nearly 50% of my shots are taken in difficult conditions incl. fooul weather. Let me share my own thoughts on WR.

sterretje has an excellent point and it need to be re-stated. It is critical to stress again and again that WR does mean weatherproof. It does not mean 'waterproof'. Simply a WR lens is more likely to resist to the elements than the majority of other lenses. That is it. Full stop.:ugh:

There are several non-WR lenses with an oustanding track record in foul weather: the DA18-250mm, the Voigtlander Nokton 58mm. Several Pentaxians have had some experience with these two in really bad conditions. On the other hand, I am certainly more careful with my FA31mm, although mine wokred nicely into some light rain like sterretje. Simply the construction quality and record of a lens is possibly more important than the WR label.

One question that is not often discussed is: is it best to have a WR body or WR lenses, or both ? Based upon my own experience, I consider the WR body as essential, to protect the contacts (eg card, battery), but less the lens as long as the lens is a reputed one.

Food for thoughts...

ProgMtl · 04-01-2011, 07:15 AM

Thanks for all the comments...appreciated

DaveHolmes · 04-01-2011, 08:39 AM

I use a K-x and live in England...
Part of my 'Camera Gear' includes a heavy duty plastic shopping bag with 1 corner cut (for the end of the lens) and a couple of elastic bands...

They get used and replaced often and take up very little space... Hope helps...

03-30-2011, 07:39 AM	#1
ProgMtl Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Trabuco Canyon, CA Posts: 49	Weather resistant lens question I currently own the K-x (with 18-55 & 50-200 lenses). My last few trips to Yosemite were met with heavy, wet snowfall while already there, resulting in not a whole lot of pictures being taken. My next trip will be in June when the waterfalls will be in full force after all the snow this year. I'm saving up to get a K-7 (mainly because of the weather resistant specs, but for a few other reasons as well). My question is: Would I benefit at all from obtaining the WR versions of the above lenses and using them with the K-x until I can afford the K-7 body? Thanks for any input

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
PENTAX ADDS 100mm F2.8 WR MACRO TO WEATHER-RESISTANT LENS LINE-UP	Adam	Homepage & Official Pentax News	28	12-15-2009 03:12 PM
Pentax - 'weather-resistant' 100mm f/2.8 macro lens announced?	chirpy	Pentax News and Rumors	7	12-09-2009 07:32 PM
How weather resistant is the K200d with a DA* lens on it?	Kornbread	Pentax DSLR Discussion	18	10-08-2009 04:25 PM
Weather resistance with non-resistant lens	mindglow	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	10-07-2009 08:38 PM

03-30-2011, 08:29 AM	#2
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,461	I think, the answer to that is that in terms of image quality, probably not but if having WR lenses is important to you with a WR body then yes, you would tend to benefit. Honestly, unless you intend to really get things wet, WR is nice to have but simple management of camera in and out of a backpack (or keeping your camera under an arm, or inside a coat etc.) and a handy towel will serve you well for most situations. At falls in Yosemite like Bridalveil the spray can be dealt with by just camera management. It's more of a problem to keep the lens clear then damaging the camera IMHO. I have shot in heavy rain with my K20 and DA* lenses (which are all WR) without worry but even when I did, I used an umbrella when I had the camera on a tripod. A lens hood is always a big help in wet conditions too. All of that said, I can see having one camera/lens set up that's all WR just in case you want to be able to be out in the rain with out worry.

03-30-2011, 08:32 AM	#3
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	The WR versions add the quickshift capability (once you try it you'll appreciate it) and come with hoods vs. the kit lenses. Image quality should be similar if not equal. No benefit as far as taking picture in inclement weather as the camera will still be the weak point if it is not WR also.

03-30-2011, 09:31 AM	#4
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,461	Ah, good point on the lens hoods and quick shift. My DA 18-50 and 50-200 were the original versions which came with both. Yes, both are necessary features.

03-30-2011, 10:02 PM	#5
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	I agree with blackcloudbrew; I have used the FA31Ltd on a K5 in pouring rain about 3 months ago. Yes, it did worry me a bit but no bad effects have shown till now. I just wiped it dry with a hanky after each use. And next time, I will be a bit more prepared and add some extra protection by means of a plastic bag. There was a post a couple of month ago where some people stated that they don't see WR as the primary line of defense but as a second line of defense. Originally posted by crewl1 No benefit as far as taking picture in inclement weather as the camera will still be the weak point if it is not WR also. OP is saving up for a K7

03-30-2011, 10:25 PM	#6
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	The DA 18-55 WR is a bit cheaper if you get it with the K-7. When I was shopping last year, there weren't any package deals including other WR lenses. So maybe wait on the 18-55.

03-31-2011, 08:35 PM	#7
hcc Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,005	Originally posted by sterretje There was a post a couple of month ago where some people stated that they don't see WR as the primary line of defense but as a second line of defense. I have a K-7, and all my lenses are not WR. Yet I shoot often under the rain incl. rainstorms, in splash, spray, white waters, breaking waves... Nearly 50% of my shots are taken in difficult conditions incl. fooul weather. Let me share my own thoughts on WR. sterretje has an excellent point and it need to be re-stated. It is critical to stress again and again that WR does mean weatherproof. It does not mean 'waterproof'. Simply a WR lens is more likely to resist to the elements than the majority of other lenses. That is it. Full stop.:ugh: There are several non-WR lenses with an oustanding track record in foul weather: the DA18-250mm, the Voigtlander Nokton 58mm. Several Pentaxians have had some experience with these two in really bad conditions. On the other hand, I am certainly more careful with my FA31mm, although mine wokred nicely into some light rain like sterretje. Simply the construction quality and record of a lens is possibly more important than the WR label. One question that is not often discussed is: is it best to have a WR body or WR lenses, or both ? Based upon my own experience, I consider the WR body as essential, to protect the contacts (eg card, battery), but less the lens as long as the lens is a reputed one. Food for thoughts...

04-01-2011, 07:15 AM	#8
ProgMtl Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Trabuco Canyon, CA Posts: 49 Original Poster	Thanks for all the comments...appreciated

04-01-2011, 08:39 AM	#9
DaveHolmes Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 1,501	I use a K-x and live in England... Part of my 'Camera Gear' includes a heavy duty plastic shopping bag with 1 corner cut (for the end of the lens) and a couple of elastic bands... They get used and replaced often and take up very little space... Hope helps...