Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-11-2008, 04:39 AM   #1
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philippines
Posts: 1,399
If the LX was built to be dust- and weather-sealed...

...then maybe Pentax have made some of their old lenses to the same rigid specs, right?

Or is it just wishful thinking on my part? It's quite a slow day in the office, so I still get to read up on the LX.

12-11-2008, 06:40 AM   #2
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,157
QuoteOriginally posted by vinzer Quote
...then maybe Pentax have made some of their old lenses to the same rigid specs, right?

Or is it just wishful thinking on my part? It's quite a slow day in the office, so I still get to read up on the LX.
Wishful thinking.
12-11-2008, 08:01 AM   #3
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,476
Without the electronics and all, weather-sealing a lens just wasn't something that was too big a deal, mostly, the idea never seemed to occur. Some would inhale more dust than others, though. (especially certain zooms of the push-pull type: the groups that moved around in there could act like pistons.) All in all, probably best if most lenses weren't sealed up so tight, though, you could just end up with fungus issues or something, I imagine, once those seals got a bit loose.
12-11-2008, 08:11 AM   #4
Site Supporter
Rorschach's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kuusamo, Finland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 598
QuoteOriginally posted by Ratmagiclady Quote
Without the electronics and all, weather-sealing a lens just wasn't something that was too big a deal, mostly, the idea never seemed to occur. Some would inhale more dust than others, though. (especially certain zooms of the push-pull type: the groups that moved around in there could act like pistons.) All in all, probably best if most lenses weren't sealed up so tight, though, you could just end up with fungus issues or something, I imagine, once those seals got a bit loose.
Sure, the lenses themselves maybe weren't in a dire need of protection but what about the lens mount? It sure would help to have the mount selaed if you have a body like LX that is sealed...any chain is only as strong as the wekeast point after all. Too bad the DA* lenses don't cover the full image circle...

12-11-2008, 08:23 AM   #5
Moderator PEG Judges
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 32,742
LX bodies were, lenses weren't, I've worked in some fairly hostile enviroments (deserts) and this mix never once failed me.

Unlike the Nikon kit I used to own, which would have just needed a spade to complete the bucket and spade combo for the beach.
12-11-2008, 08:28 AM   #6
Site Supporter
Rorschach's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kuusamo, Finland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 598
QuoteOriginally posted by kerrowdown Quote
LX bodies were, lenses weren't, I've worked in some fairly hostile enviroments (deserts) and this mix never once failed me.

Unlike the Nikon kit I used to own, which would have just needed a spade to complete the bucket and spade combo for the beach.
Ok, I stand corrected then. What lenses did you use in those conditions with the LX? It'd be nice to know.
12-11-2008, 09:38 AM   #7
Inactive Account




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Posts: 322
QuoteOriginally posted by Boucicaut Quote
Sure, the lenses themselves maybe weren't in a dire need of protection but what about the lens mount? It sure would help to have the mount selaed if you have a body like LX that is sealed...any chain is only as strong as the wekeast point after all. Too bad the DA* lenses don't cover the full image circle...
The DA* lenses don't have an aperture ring and are near-useless on the LX (which only has AV & M modes) even if they covered the frame. Unless you shoot wide open all the time.

I don't think the LX was weatherproofed to the same degree that the new K-series DSLRs are; if I recall it's mostly rubber gaskets under the controls on the top deck and the multi-function lever. It's still the best sealed manual focus body, though. Scroll down to bottom of the linked page to see the locations. (looks like the top & bottom plates are bonded, and the finder has seals where it slides into the body)

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/pentaxlx/reliability/index.htm

I shot with an MX through New Zealand (Wet, especially in milford sound) and the red centre of Australia's desert. Of course, I kept the camera in my bag when not shooting, as opposed to on my shoulder or around my neck. The interface between stainless-steel mounts and the throat of the body is pretty tight, i'd be more worried about dust getting in when changing lenses.
12-11-2008, 01:04 PM   #8
Moderator PEG Judges
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 32,742
QuoteOriginally posted by Boucicaut Quote
Ok, I stand corrected then. What lenses did you use in those conditions with the LX? It'd be nice to know.
All Pentax lenses, only primes of both M series but primarily A series, just give a good blow & brush each night at finish.

Still using today some of the same A series lenses from way back then, the joys of being a Pentax owner.

12-11-2008, 01:23 PM   #9
Site Supporter
Rorschach's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kuusamo, Finland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 598
QuoteOriginally posted by kerrowdown Quote
All Pentax lenses, only primes of both M series but primarily A series, just give a good blow & brush each night at finish.

Still using today some of the same A series lenses from way back then, the joys of being a Pentax owner.
Ok Did you ever use a A-series 35-105mm f3.5? This one sounds tempting to me as a walkaround lens. Supposed to be good quality per price.
12-11-2008, 01:48 PM   #10
Veteran Member
artobest's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Swansea, Wales
Posts: 455
QuoteOriginally posted by Boucicaut Quote
Ok Did you ever use a A-series 35-105mm f3.5? This one sounds tempting to me as a walkaround lens. Supposed to be good quality per price.
I have that lens. Very solid, heavy build - maybe too heavy for me, but can't fault the workmanship, except maybe a tiny touch of looseness in the focus ring when not in macro that is characteristic of the lens. Great glass, but the front element is very close to the front, and prone to damage, especially since the front cap is damn fiddly. I keep a filter on it (67mm thread, so not cheap). The macro function is pretty useful considering it's an afterthought on a lens like this (close focus otherwise would be nothing to write home about).

The lens balances OK on my LX without winder, but a winder would help I think - as I say, it's heavy, although not as heavy as, say, the SMC-A 70-210. And it looks great! A no-no on the ME Super though.

The lens has a great reputation and the pictures are superb. Tests show barrel and pincushion at the extremes, but in the real world I don't notice/care. To get back on-topic for a moment, I doubt it's especially watertight - if it were it would qualify for a * by today's standards.
12-11-2008, 01:57 PM   #11
Site Supporter
Rorschach's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kuusamo, Finland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 598
QuoteOriginally posted by artobest Quote
I have that lens. Very solid, heavy build - maybe too heavy for me, but can't fault the workmanship, except maybe a tiny touch of looseness in the focus ring when not in macro that is characteristic of the lens. Great glass, but the front element is very close to the front, and prone to damage, especially since the front cap is damn fiddly. I keep a filter on it (67mm thread, so not cheap). The macro function is pretty useful considering it's an afterthought on a lens like this (close focus otherwise would be nothing to write home about).

The lens balances OK on my LX without winder, but a winder would help I think - as I say, it's heavy, although not as heavy as, say, the SMC-A 70-210. And it looks great! A no-no on the ME Super though.

The lens has a great reputation and the pictures are superb. Tests show barrel and pincushion at the extremes, but in the real world I don't notice/care. To get back on-topic for a moment, I doubt it's especially watertight - if it were it would qualify for a * by today's standards.
Thanks for the info!
12-11-2008, 02:18 PM   #12
Moderator PEG Judges
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 32,742
QuoteOriginally posted by Boucicaut Quote
Ok Did you ever use a A-series 35-105mm f3.5? This one sounds tempting to me as a walkaround lens. Supposed to be good quality per price.

No sorry, I've only got and used primes, but artobest has got the gen for you there.

I would recommend a fast 50 as a walkaround job, it will take all you can throw at it and you can zoom with your legs.
12-11-2008, 03:34 PM   #13
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,476
I've got the Canon FD lens that's very similar to that one. It's a tad big, especially for the day, and pretty solid in weight, but I refer to it as 'Small Stack of Primes.' I'm thinking the Pentax one could be of use to me for a tele.

So, no, no, horrible, horrible lens. Why would anyone want that.
12-11-2008, 07:52 PM   #14
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philippines
Posts: 1,399
Original Poster
Wow, thanks for all the information, guys. The idea that older lenses need not have to be super-sealed since they don't have electronics in them sounds very, very reasonable.

Good to hear that your combos work in deserts and rain.
12-12-2008, 04:28 AM   #15
Site Supporter
Rorschach's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kuusamo, Finland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 598
QuoteOriginally posted by kerrowdown Quote
No sorry, I've only got and used primes, but artobest has got the gen for you there.

I would recommend a fast 50 as a walkaround job, it will take all you can throw at it and you can zoom with your legs.
i
I've already got a FA 50mm f1.4 so fast 50 is covered However, It's often not wide enough, especially when mounted on my K10D instead of MX or LX. And you can't use the foot zoom method in all circumstances.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
lx
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sigma SD1 weather sealed, maybe weather sealed Sigma Lenses too? trd300gt Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 0 09-21-2010 10:12 PM
Canon 7D Weather Sealed? Samsungian Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 16 12-25-2009 08:26 AM
Weather sealed lenses nixcamic Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 07-20-2008 05:33 PM
Weather sealed K200d - why? Jerry O Pentax DSLR Discussion 16 04-17-2008 10:20 AM
Are all * lenses weather sealed? selar Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 01-13-2008 08:50 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:48 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top