[lukelbd]

Hello,

I'm glad I finally got around to joining this forum -- I've had my K-r for half a year and have really loved it. However, I noticed as I'm really getting into photography that the awesome K-5 has seen its price drop hugely, which supposedly will last only until the end of November. I'm going to inevitably upgrade, and I think now's the best time. (I found one deal from a very legitimate website that placed the camera AND lens at $1060!) (I plan on selling the K-r and its kit lens on ebay, but do you know of any other ways money can be made from a moderately used camera, or other sites that might be better?).

My main question is, would it be a good idea to get the Sigma 17-70mm OS HSM Macro instead of getting the 18-55mm AL WR kit lens? I don't know if the lens quality difference and better ergonomics of the Sigma is worth the price difference, given that, though I've heard the Sigma is a solid lens, I will be using this lens often while backpacking and hiking, and the weather-sealing would be very important to me.

A more obscure question related to this is: does the weather-proofing of the body alone seal the connection between the body and the lens, or is the connection only sealed with WR lenses? I realize even a makeshift rainsleeve could be attached to the Sigma from the end of the barrel without much difficulty to protect most of it, but that connection would still always be vulnerable.


Anyway, basically, I want to get a Sigma, but I'm not sure if I would be wasting the weather-sealing of the K-5 body, something I had planned to use, if I stuck it on there. What do you think? Also, I haven't seen any weather sealed third-party lenses less than $500, but am I missing something?

Lots of questions, I know. Thanks in advance for the feedback.

[Adam]

or is the connection only sealed with WR lenses?

The seal is on the lens itself, so the latter.

Overall, though, the 17-70mm is a pretty big upgrade over the kit lens. I would go for it. Unless you're a big outdoor shooter, I don't think you'll miss the weather-sealing.

[JinDesu]

I just upgraded to the 17-70 and here's my impressions:

No weathersealing

BUUUUT, beyond that... at the wide end it's pretty amazing, a ton better than the kit lens, even wide open at F2.8. At the long end, it isn't amazing wide open, but stopped down it's still better than the kit lens by a good margin. The bokeh is pretty good (the kit lens bokeh is kinda... meh....). As for form and function, the body is quite a lot bigger than the kit lens, and heavier. The HSM motor is cute in that it's quiet, but it's not perfectly quiet like the Nikon VR or some of the Canon USM lenses. It makes a little "thud" sound while it tries to find focus, so if it's hard to find focus, you'll hear "thud thud thud thud thud", but very quietly. The lens is pretty well made, very solid and everything feels like a higher end lens (besides the plastic body).

Now, as far as weather sealing is concerned, if you use a rainsleeve, it generally incorporates the body as well. With that in mind, water could still possibly get in from the front element and just compromise everything - however small this possibility. You could look at getting the DA*16-50 - it's quite a bit more expensive than the 17-70, but it is F2.8 all throughout, has weathersealing, SDM, and a better build.

[lukelbd]

I just upgraded to the 17-70 and here's my impressions:

No weathersealing

BUUUUT, beyond that... at the wide end it's pretty amazing, a ton better than the kit lens, even wide open at F2.8. At the long end, it isn't amazing wide open, but stopped down it's still better than the kit lens by a good margin. The bokeh is pretty good (the kit lens bokeh is kinda... meh....). As for form and function, the body is quite a lot bigger than the kit lens, and heavier. The HSM motor is cute in that it's quiet, but it's not perfectly quiet like the Nikon VR or some of the Canon USM lenses. It makes a little "thud" sound while it tries to find focus, so if it's hard to find focus, you'll hear "thud thud thud thud thud", but very quietly. The lens is pretty well made, very solid and everything feels like a higher end lens (besides the plastic body).

Now, as far as weather sealing is concerned, if you use a rainsleeve, it generally incorporates the body as well. With that in mind, water could still possibly get in from the front element and just compromise everything - however small this possibility. You could look at getting the DA*16-50 - it's quite a bit more expensive than the 17-70, but it is F2.8 all throughout, has weathersealing, SDM, and a better build.

Okay, well given that I can find a new K-5 for a minimum of $980, and this other offer supposedly has the K-5 and kit lens for $1060, maybe it would be a good idea to get the K-5 with the kit lens and get the sigma? Even though that seems overkill... I don't suppose any weather-sealed Nikons can be put on the Pentax?

[sterretje]

The lens takes care of the sealing between leans and body; there is a rubber (or whatever material) ring on the lens. Further, as far as I know, at this moment only Pentax lenses are WR (for the Pentax system).

Using some common sense and a platic bag will get you a long way with regards to WR. Plenty of people shoot in adverse weather conditions with non-WR gear. And some consider WR only a second line of defense.

In my opinion it is usefull (but not the holy grail). I've used a non-WR prime lens in pouring rain without additional protection and without ill effects. Just wipe it more or less dry before you stow it back in the camera bag so the excess water is gone. And make sure that you have a bag that protects well against the elements.

[lukelbd]

Sounds good... well, seeing as the rebate and the huge price reduction ends in a little over a week, I think I'm going to get the K-5 with the kit lens and get the sigma as well. Then I'll compare the quality of the lenses and see how the "weather-sealed" one feels in comparison. I'll return one of them if I decide, or maybe in the end I'll just keep both given the solid advantages both offer and the relatively low cost of the kit.