A Nikon beauty lens?

Todd Adamson · 06-04-2011, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by K-9

Using something in the rain and it working afterward does not mean it's weather sealed. It means you lucked out.

That's ridiculous. For Pentax, "Weather Sealed" is an official spec. Capital letters. WR stamped on hardware. For Nikon, it's not. It's just a semantic term. As far as I know, neither manufacturer has assigned discrete parameters to how much weather or water is too much. But I've had my D3 out for hours in seriously heavy downpours, without issue. With the 70-200, and even with older lenses. I didn't "luck out," LOL. It's a pro body, designed to hold up under adverse conditions. It's every bit as "weather sealed" as a K-5 in practical terms.

Rory · 06-04-2011, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Todd Adamson

That's ridiculous. For Pentax, "Weather Sealed" is an official spec. Capital letters. WR stamped on hardware. For Nikon, it's not. It's just a semantic term. As far as I know, neither manufacturer has assigned discrete parameters to how much weather or water is too much. But I've had my D3 out for hours in seriously heavy downpours, without issue. With the 70-200, and even with older lenses. I didn't "luck out," LOL. It's a pro body, designed to hold up under adverse conditions. It's every bit as "weather sealed" as a K-5 in practical terms.

Careful with that logic you're spreading. They may attack you for making sense.

K-9 · 06-04-2011, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by Todd Adamson

That's ridiculous. For Pentax, "Weather Sealed" is an official spec. Capital letters. WR stamped on hardware. For Nikon, it's not. It's just a semantic term. As far as I know, neither manufacturer has assigned discrete parameters to how much weather or water is too much. But I've had my D3 out for hours in seriously heavy downpours, without issue. With the 70-200, and even with older lenses. I didn't "luck out," LOL. It's a pro body, designed to hold up under adverse conditions. It's every bit as "weather sealed" as a K-5 in practical terms.

Go read the thousands of Amazon and online reviews on lenses and cameras. You get tons of mixed reviews. Some people swear their "weather proof" camera holds up to any elements, and in contrast to that that viewpoint you ALWAYS have dozens of others who claimed there's broke down within minutes of it getting splashed. If a camera isn't touted as weather sealed, the model is not. If you used it in the rain and it didn't malfunction, you did luck out, because there's always another user of the exact same piece of equipment whose version didn't survive. Did they have different rain? Did they use it at different apertures that block water? Did they get assurance from Dpreview that it's weather proof? Of course not. It's down to the luck of the draw, no matter which way you slice your logic.

K-9 · 06-04-2011, 06:38 PM

You guys are bringing up the D700 and the D3, but these ARE touted by Nikon to be weather sealed, although they use the term "moisture protection". What I have been talking about are the lenses/bodies that ARE NOT touted as weather sealed. The poster I originally commented on was talking about using an AF-D lens in the rain, which none of them are mentioned by Nikon to be moisture protected. I originally talked about how Nikon lenses are not touted as being weather sealed. Rory, I don't care if Dpreview claims the G lenses are weather sealed, Nikon does not say they are. And I don't know how the conversation turned to bodies, because we were originally talking about lenses, as the OP asked about a Nikon lens that was weather sealed.

Rory · 06-04-2011, 08:42 PM

K-9, the poster right above me asked where there is anything that says that bodies or lenses are weather sealed. EDIT- Nevermind, that was you whining to show something about sealed bodies. Keep generating strawman arguments, buddy.

Also, when was the last time you used a Nikon G lens in the rain? Better yet, when was the last time you shot a Nikon? Nevermind. I'll give you an easier one. When was the last time you held a Nikon G-series pro lens?

Pentax WR lenses have a rubber gromet on towards the inner portion of the rear element. The Nikons seal wraps all the way around the mount on the lens. I have no worries going out in pouring rain, shooting wakeboarding, snowboarding, snowing, etc.

aurele · 06-05-2011, 02:39 AM

Rory, your comment is a bit irrelevant about the body : we don't speak about body, we are discussing about lenses.

Yes, Nikon High End body are build to resist to elements, rain, dust, etc ...

No, the Nikon lenses are not.

As i said, you can shoot under rain without WR gear (i do), but consider you are just lucky if nothing bad happen to your gear.

DPreview, no matter how pro they are, they do not are the one who build nikon lense, so maybe they said it's WR, but Nikon never said it.

To finish, let's stop arguing about pro/cons about the resistance of Nikon lenses / body, because the main question still remain the same : wich Nikon lense can be use as a beauty lense for less or about 500$ ?

Noob, you said you shoot outdoor ? unless you shoot under rain, or wet mud, you probably should not need a WR lense.

Rory · 06-05-2011, 07:30 AM

Explain how it's irrelevant when K-9 asked to post anything in writing that says it's sealed.

K-9 · 06-05-2011, 07:41 AM

OP has long since gone as we've derailed his search for a weather sealed Nikon lens, that technically does not exist. He's gone on to ask 20 other questions throughout the forum. Although, does anyone know if Sigma or Tamron or the other brands have "weather sealed" lenses? He didn't necessarily say he needed Nikon brand, just a "beauty" lens.

Todd Adamson · 06-05-2011, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by K-9

If a camera isn't touted as weather sealed, the model is not.

Hahha, OK, I'll make a note that all I must do is pay attention to what a manufacturer "touts." After all, they're only selling the product, I'm sure their only interest is in properly describing everything for the consumer's benefit. I'm also sure Amazon reviewers never have an agenda and none of them are morons.

Once again, "Weather Sealed" or "Weather Resistant" are marketing claims, and semantic terms. There isn't a formal specification, from either manufacturer. The difference between undefined and unregulated claims made by different manufacturers is, for all practical purposes, meaningless. What matters is design, materials, and performance. Look at exploded diagrams and identify O-rings, gaskets, etc.

Both manufacturers make bodies and lenses which are weather resistant. One manufacturer makes a formal claim of this, one does not. If you accept a thing because it is "touted," or deny it because it not "touted," you will not be doing yourself any favors in buying products, of any sort.

Nikon makes bodies, AND lenses, which are weather resistant. They just aren't Weather Resistant.

No, I did not get lucky because my camera didn't die after being used in the rain a hundred times. That's ludicrous. Some people may have gotten UNlucky in having failures, sure. Just like some people got unlucky in getting a K-5 with a messed up sensor.

Pentax makes awesome gear. It's too bad for them that it's not more widely known how awesome it is. But I wish Pentax users didn't have to carry around inferiority complexes because of it, and feel slighted every time someone says something postitive about Nikon.

Seriously, it's not like we're talking about Canon here.

K-9 · 06-05-2011, 08:17 AM

I'm sure it's most likely for warranty/liability reasons. If a manufacturer is comfortable that their product will resist moisture, they will say so; it will help sell their product. If not, with all the testing they do, I'm sure the product just isn't 100% moisture proof. They're not going to tout it as such, so no one can claim warranty repair later, saying their lens got water damaged.

Does anyone know if Pentax will honor warranty repair for moisture damage to WR lenses?

Rory · 06-05-2011, 08:31 AM

Search the forums. More times than not, Pentax will not cover water damage.

Todd Adamson · 06-05-2011, 08:37 AM

Yeah, that's probably it. Nikon lacks confidence in their product, and their legal counsel. You've found them out. OMG

Rory · 06-05-2011, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Todd Adamson

Yeah, that's probably it. Nikon lacks confidence in their product, and their legal counsel. You've found them out. OMG

Clicker · 06-11-2011, 08:06 PM

Unless you're planning on shooting a lot of fashion in pouring rain I don't see the need for a fully sealed lens, then again I don't think I've ever seen anyone shooting fashion in pouring rain?

fisheye freak · 06-28-2011, 05:56 AM

Gee, you are lucky getting someone to spring in 500 euros for a present. The most I ever get is 30 euro equivalent for a present. An 85mm f/1.4 is something you would probably never need to update and will also hold a fair bit of its value. If you do not mind the weight, an 80-200 f/2.8 would be a lens that will take a bit to get superseded . A 105mm macro is just suitable for portraits as well as the macro.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Vivitar Lens Club - share the beauty	Arjay Bee	Lens Clubs	1051	03-16-2024 02:35 PM
My Favorite Focal Length Lens for Shooting Beauty	benjikan	Photographic Technique	5	09-09-2010 08:59 PM
For Sale - Sold: Nikon Nikkor ED 80-200mm f/2.8 AF Lens for Nikon, Worldwide ship!	wallyb	Sold Items	14	12-28-2009 11:31 AM
Which Lens and Shooting Space is Required for a Fashion & Beauty Shoot?	benjikan	Photographic Technique	2	08-20-2009 10:12 PM

06-04-2011, 02:18 PM	#16
Todd Adamson Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Iowa Posts: 722	Originally posted by K-9 Using something in the rain and it working afterward does not mean it's weather sealed. It means you lucked out. That's ridiculous. For Pentax, "Weather Sealed" is an official spec. Capital letters. WR stamped on hardware. For Nikon, it's not. It's just a semantic term. As far as I know, neither manufacturer has assigned discrete parameters to how much weather or water is too much. But I've had my D3 out for hours in seriously heavy downpours, without issue. With the 70-200, and even with older lenses. I didn't "luck out," LOL. It's a pro body, designed to hold up under adverse conditions. It's every bit as "weather sealed" as a K-5 in practical terms.

06-04-2011, 02:25 PM	#17
Rory Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Chicago Photos: Gallery Posts: 672	Originally posted by Todd Adamson That's ridiculous. For Pentax, "Weather Sealed" is an official spec. Capital letters. WR stamped on hardware. For Nikon, it's not. It's just a semantic term. As far as I know, neither manufacturer has assigned discrete parameters to how much weather or water is too much. But I've had my D3 out for hours in seriously heavy downpours, without issue. With the 70-200, and even with older lenses. I didn't "luck out," LOL. It's a pro body, designed to hold up under adverse conditions. It's every bit as "weather sealed" as a K-5 in practical terms. Careful with that logic you're spreading. They may attack you for making sense.

06-04-2011, 06:21 PM	#18
K-9 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,971	Originally posted by Todd Adamson That's ridiculous. For Pentax, "Weather Sealed" is an official spec. Capital letters. WR stamped on hardware. For Nikon, it's not. It's just a semantic term. As far as I know, neither manufacturer has assigned discrete parameters to how much weather or water is too much. But I've had my D3 out for hours in seriously heavy downpours, without issue. With the 70-200, and even with older lenses. I didn't "luck out," LOL. It's a pro body, designed to hold up under adverse conditions. It's every bit as "weather sealed" as a K-5 in practical terms. Go read the thousands of Amazon and online reviews on lenses and cameras. You get tons of mixed reviews. Some people swear their "weather proof" camera holds up to any elements, and in contrast to that that viewpoint you ALWAYS have dozens of others who claimed there's broke down within minutes of it getting splashed. If a camera isn't touted as weather sealed, the model is not. If you used it in the rain and it didn't malfunction, you did luck out, because there's always another user of the exact same piece of equipment whose version didn't survive. Did they have different rain? Did they use it at different apertures that block water? Did they get assurance from Dpreview that it's weather proof? Of course not. It's down to the luck of the draw, no matter which way you slice your logic.

06-04-2011, 06:38 PM	#19
K-9 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,971	You guys are bringing up the D700 and the D3, but these ARE touted by Nikon to be weather sealed, although they use the term "moisture protection". What I have been talking about are the lenses/bodies that ARE NOT touted as weather sealed. The poster I originally commented on was talking about using an AF-D lens in the rain, which none of them are mentioned by Nikon to be moisture protected. I originally talked about how Nikon lenses are not touted as being weather sealed. Rory, I don't care if Dpreview claims the G lenses are weather sealed, Nikon does not say they are. And I don't know how the conversation turned to bodies, because we were originally talking about lenses, as the OP asked about a Nikon lens that was weather sealed.

06-04-2011, 08:42 PM	#20
Rory Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Chicago Photos: Gallery Posts: 672	K-9, the poster right above me asked where there is anything that says that bodies or lenses are weather sealed. EDIT- Nevermind, that was you whining to show something about sealed bodies. Keep generating strawman arguments, buddy. Also, when was the last time you used a Nikon G lens in the rain? Better yet, when was the last time you shot a Nikon? Nevermind. I'll give you an easier one. When was the last time you held a Nikon G-series pro lens? Pentax WR lenses have a rubber gromet on towards the inner portion of the rear element. The Nikons seal wraps all the way around the mount on the lens. I have no worries going out in pouring rain, shooting wakeboarding, snowboarding, snowing, etc.

06-05-2011, 02:39 AM	#21
aurele Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Paris, France Photos: Albums Posts: 3,217	Rory, your comment is a bit irrelevant about the body : we don't speak about body, we are discussing about lenses. Yes, Nikon High End body are build to resist to elements, rain, dust, etc ... No, the Nikon lenses are not. As i said, you can shoot under rain without WR gear (i do), but consider you are just lucky if nothing bad happen to your gear. DPreview, no matter how pro they are, they do not are the one who build nikon lense, so maybe they said it's WR, but Nikon never said it. To finish, let's stop arguing about pro/cons about the resistance of Nikon lenses / body, because the main question still remain the same : wich Nikon lense can be use as a beauty lense for less or about 500$ ? Noob, you said you shoot outdoor ? unless you shoot under rain, or wet mud, you probably should not need a WR lense.

06-05-2011, 07:30 AM	#22
Rory Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Chicago Photos: Gallery Posts: 672	Explain how it's irrelevant when K-9 asked to post anything in writing that says it's sealed.

06-05-2011, 07:41 AM	#23
K-9 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,971	OP has long since gone as we've derailed his search for a weather sealed Nikon lens, that technically does not exist. He's gone on to ask 20 other questions throughout the forum. Although, does anyone know if Sigma or Tamron or the other brands have "weather sealed" lenses? He didn't necessarily say he needed Nikon brand, just a "beauty" lens.

06-05-2011, 08:06 AM	#24
Todd Adamson Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Iowa Posts: 722	Originally posted by K-9 If a camera isn't touted as weather sealed, the model is not. Hahha, OK, I'll make a note that all I must do is pay attention to what a manufacturer "touts." After all, they're only selling the product, I'm sure their only interest is in properly describing everything for the consumer's benefit. I'm also sure Amazon reviewers never have an agenda and none of them are morons. Once again, "Weather Sealed" or "Weather Resistant" are marketing claims, and semantic terms. There isn't a formal specification, from either manufacturer. The difference between undefined and unregulated claims made by different manufacturers is, for all practical purposes, meaningless. What matters is design, materials, and performance. Look at exploded diagrams and identify O-rings, gaskets, etc. Both manufacturers make bodies and lenses which are weather resistant. One manufacturer makes a formal claim of this, one does not. If you accept a thing because it is "touted," or deny it because it not "touted," you will not be doing yourself any favors in buying products, of any sort. Nikon makes bodies, AND lenses, which are weather resistant. They just aren't Weather Resistant. No, I did not get lucky because my camera didn't die after being used in the rain a hundred times. That's ludicrous. Some people may have gotten UNlucky in having failures, sure. Just like some people got unlucky in getting a K-5 with a messed up sensor. Pentax makes awesome gear. It's too bad for them that it's not more widely known how awesome it is. But I wish Pentax users didn't have to carry around inferiority complexes because of it, and feel slighted every time someone says something postitive about Nikon. Seriously, it's not like we're talking about Canon here.

06-05-2011, 08:17 AM	#25
K-9 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,971	I'm sure it's most likely for warranty/liability reasons. If a manufacturer is comfortable that their product will resist moisture, they will say so; it will help sell their product. If not, with all the testing they do, I'm sure the product just isn't 100% moisture proof. They're not going to tout it as such, so no one can claim warranty repair later, saying their lens got water damaged. Does anyone know if Pentax will honor warranty repair for moisture damage to WR lenses?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-05-2011, 08:31 AM	#26
Rory Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Chicago Photos: Gallery Posts: 672	Search the forums. More times than not, Pentax will not cover water damage.

06-05-2011, 08:37 AM	#27
Todd Adamson Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Iowa Posts: 722	Yeah, that's probably it. Nikon lacks confidence in their product, and their legal counsel. You've found them out. OMG

06-05-2011, 08:52 AM	#28
Rory Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Chicago Photos: Gallery Posts: 672	Originally posted by Todd Adamson Yeah, that's probably it. Nikon lacks confidence in their product, and their legal counsel. You've found them out. OMG

06-11-2011, 08:06 PM	#29
Clicker Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,241	Unless you're planning on shooting a lot of fashion in pouring rain I don't see the need for a fully sealed lens, then again I don't think I've ever seen anyone shooting fashion in pouring rain?

06-28-2011, 05:56 AM	#30
fisheye freak Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Bondi, Australia Posts: 206	Gee, you are lucky getting someone to spring in 500 euros for a present. The most I ever get is 30 euro equivalent for a present. An 85mm f/1.4 is something you would probably never need to update and will also hold a fair bit of its value. If you do not mind the weight, an 80-200 f/2.8 would be a lens that will take a bit to get superseded . A 105mm macro is just suitable for portraits as well as the macro.