WR body (K7) + Non-WR Lens = meaningless?

uchinakuri · 03-25-2010, 07:35 PM

Just as the title states, I'm really close to jumping on the K7 bandwagon for my first dslr! I stated in an earlier thread that I love taking photos at the beach, so WR seems to be important.

If I'm concerned about the corrosion effects of humid/salty air, does it make it practically meaningless to have a K7 body with a non-WR lens?

Case in point, I was thinking of getting the DA (star) 55mm F1.4 lens, but it's literally 3x more expensive than the FA 50mm 1.4....

Last edited by uchinakuri; 03-25-2010 at 08:17 PM.

Wheatfield · 03-25-2010, 08:10 PM

People have been shooting in less than nice conditions for a very long time with non weather sealed cameras.
Practice due diligence with your equipment and it will do just fine for you.

Jewelltrail · 03-25-2010, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Wheatfield: People have been shooting in less than nice conditions for a very long time with non weather sealed cameras.
Practice due diligence with your equipment and it will do just fine for you.

Agreed...............

mcjm78 · 03-25-2010, 11:15 PM

But your K7 kit lens is WR

uchinakuri · 03-25-2010, 11:16 PM

Actually, im thinking of getting the body only..

imtheguy · 03-25-2010, 11:41 PM

After having a Sigma 24-135mm short out at the beach apparantly due to very high humidy and just proximity to the salt water, I picked up the Pentax 18-55mm WR for cheap just for a walk the beach lens. Its so light its worth the trade for range. I have da*300 if I need serious WR range but usually just want to take snaps of people and landscape without worrying that the salt air will hurt anything as I walk in ankle deep surf.

btw, the Sigma recovered after a few hours back in the air-conditioned indoors.

Tommy · 03-26-2010, 12:52 AM

I remember feeling the same way when I bought my K10D over 3 years ago. I've been using it with non-WR lenses only, in snow and light rain. I found that if I just put my hand on top of the lens, not much water will end up on the lens. But to cover the body the same way is a lot harder and it has been nice to see the WR of the K10D body working when the snow melts on it and I can later just wipe of the water with a towel.
I guess you will want to use your gear in humid environment for a longer time and my worries have mostly been with the non sealed mount. I don't have any really expensive lenses so I don't worry too much about them. Should they be ruined by humidity I would replace them with WR lenses though.
Not sure if I am of much help here but I would say that having a WR body with a non-WR lens is definitely not meaningless, but also having a WR lens is of course even better.
/Tommy

**Douglas_of_Sweden** · 03-26-2010, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by uchinakuri

Actually, im thinking of getting the body only..

I have three generations of the 18-55 lenses because for every digital Pentax I have bought I have realised that when I buy the kit lens together with the body I get it so much cheaper than if I later on regret this and want to buy it separately. Considering that this solve your concern and give you the option (with the 18-55 WR) to go completely sealed to the beach or other difficult location, I would suggest that you get the kit lens package. Then you can start looking for your first prime without being too worried about if it is WR or not.

Being sealed is just one of the nice K-7 features. It is small, does that mean that any other lens than the pancake ltds are meaningless? It is extremely silent, does that mean that all screw drive lenses are meaningless and you should only get the silent SDM lenses? It is black, does that rule out the metallic FA ltd lenses etc etc.

**Lowell Goudge** · 03-26-2010, 04:03 AM

I would agree with wheatfield here

I consider WR as additional insurance, not a functional benefit.

weather resistant does not mean weatherproof, and regardless of how well things are sealed, shooting in bad conditions requires protection of the camera..

about a year ago, a poster wrote that his camera failed after his usual practice of coming in from bad weather and washing the camera in the kitchen sink under a running tap. He couldn't understand why, he had done it many times previously.

**Rondec** · 03-26-2010, 04:17 AM

First of all, you can certainly shoot in most conditions with a non sealed lens. I think that a zoom would be more dangerous than a prime just because if it is non sealed, it will tend to draw water/ dust into it with its zooming action.

The second thing is that it is worth getting the sealed kit lens with the K7. You can easily sell it for more than you paid for it if you don't like it, but it is small, light weight, has good image quality and I think you will like it, but if not, you can easily sell it for 175 and make a little money on the side.

HeavyD · 03-26-2010, 04:21 AM

Originally posted by uchinakuri

Actually, im thinking of getting the body only..

I just purchased a K-7 kit with the 18-55mm WR lens from Abes for $994. Body only is $897, less than $100 difference. You can sell the 18-55mm WR lens for more than $100. Get the kit.

glanglois · 03-26-2010, 05:32 AM

Please note that Pentax speak of the WR lenses as "resistant" not "sealed". It seems to be a different and lesser level of protection.

The WR lenses should be OK with the occasional splash, as Pentax specifically mentions resistant to "splashes".

OTOH, I recall that they didn't note any resistance to dust and at least one article indicated that Pentax directly excluded dust resistance from their description environmental protecfion.

My conclusions: Use UV or similar filter on the beach. I expect you would anyway but sacrificing an inexpensive filter to wear from sand and cleaning is a good strategy. And use caution if it's windy. Lenses that telescope are air pumps - air goes out and in when the lens extends and retracts. At least that's what it looks like to me.

Perhaps in the worst case, a local shop can clean the dust out for much less than the cost of a replacement lens.

The real point is that you have a fine camera and wonderful opportunities with it. With a little care, there's no point in leaving it at home!!

glanglois · 03-26-2010, 05:49 AM

If dust/water/humidity enters the WR lens at places other than the mount, is there a significant threat to the camera?

If not, perhaps an O-ring or other improvised barrier at the lens mount would provide a great deal of protection to the camera and therefore limit the risk to the WR kit lens - far cheaper to clean or replace than my K-7.

And speaking of kits, I'd also encourage people here to buy the two-lens kit and put the 55-200mm WR on the market. Then I could buy it.

Alas, there aren't too many for sale here, unlike other kit lenses. Either buyers end up really liking/using them or we just don't have enough K-7 kit buyers. I bought mine very early as a I had a trip looming upon me and I don't think there were kits available. Or else I took a pass as I was already paying full MSRP because of my timing.

Danny Delcambre · 03-26-2010, 05:57 AM

Suggest WR 18-55mm because you can shoot indoors.
Non-wr 18-55 can't use indoors and it slow.

Entropy · 03-26-2010, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Danny Delcambre

Suggest WR 18-55mm because you can shoot indoors.
Non-wr 18-55 can't use indoors and it slow.

Um, this doesn't make sense. Why would the WR work indoors and the non-WR not work indoors? The non-WR and WR 18-55s have the same aperture ratings, and the AL II version of the kit lens is (to my knowledge) optically identical to the WR.

The difference between these lenses is whether you would want to use them in a harsh outdoor environment... Makes no difference indoors unless you're taking pictures in the shower or after a fire sprinkler system has engaged.

03-25-2010, 07:35 PM	#1
uchinakuri Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 57	WR body (K7) + Non-WR Lens = meaningless? Just as the title states, I'm really close to jumping on the K7 bandwagon for my first dslr! I stated in an earlier thread that I love taking photos at the beach, so WR seems to be important. If I'm concerned about the corrosion effects of humid/salty air, does it make it practically meaningless to have a K7 body with a non-WR lens? Case in point, I was thinking of getting the DA (star) 55mm F1.4 lens, but it's literally 3x more expensive than the FA 50mm 1.4.... Last edited by uchinakuri; 03-25-2010 at 08:17 PM.

03-26-2010, 05:49 AM	#13
glanglois Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Madison, Wis., USA Posts: 1,506	A related question If dust/water/humidity enters the WR lens at places other than the mount, is there a significant threat to the camera? If not, perhaps an O-ring or other improvised barrier at the lens mount would provide a great deal of protection to the camera and therefore limit the risk to the WR kit lens - far cheaper to clean or replace than my K-7. And speaking of kits, I'd also encourage people here to buy the two-lens kit and put the 55-200mm WR on the market. Then I could buy it. Alas, there aren't too many for sale here, unlike other kit lenses. Either buyers end up really liking/using them or we just don't have enough K-7 kit buyers. I bought mine very early as a I had a trip looming upon me and I don't think there were kits available. Or else I took a pass as I was already paying full MSRP because of my timing. Last edited by glanglois; 03-26-2010 at 05:51 AM. Reason: Typo

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Best starting lens? Cheap body and nice lens? or nice body and okay lens?	lovemehate	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	52	10-12-2010 07:27 PM
Wanted - Acquired: K20D, body only or body+lens (EUR)	OPTi Mystic	Sold Items	1	08-11-2010 03:42 PM
For Sale - Sold: K10D body, DA 18-55mm kit lens, Tamron DiII AF18-250mm lens; Tamrac Velocity 8	gimmepizza	Sold Items	9	12-01-2009 05:26 AM
Meaningless Series	Zeno	Post Your Photos!	15	04-24-2009 04:54 AM
istDS body, which lens best suits this body?	ilozic	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	08-20-2008 01:50 AM

03-25-2010, 08:10 PM	#2
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,976	People have been shooting in less than nice conditions for a very long time with non weather sealed cameras. Practice due diligence with your equipment and it will do just fine for you.

03-25-2010, 08:14 PM	#3
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: Wheatfield: People have been shooting in less than nice conditions for a very long time with non weather sealed cameras. Practice due diligence with your equipment and it will do just fine for you. Agreed...............

03-25-2010, 11:15 PM	#4
mcjm78 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Perth, Australia Posts: 268	But your K7 kit lens is WR

03-25-2010, 11:16 PM	#5
uchinakuri Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 57 Original Poster	Actually, im thinking of getting the body only..

03-25-2010, 11:41 PM	#6
imtheguy Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Virginia Beach Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,950	After having a Sigma 24-135mm short out at the beach apparantly due to very high humidy and just proximity to the salt water, I picked up the Pentax 18-55mm WR for cheap just for a walk the beach lens. Its so light its worth the trade for range. I have da*300 if I need serious WR range but usually just want to take snaps of people and landscape without worrying that the salt air will hurt anything as I walk in ankle deep surf. btw, the Sigma recovered after a few hours back in the air-conditioned indoors.

03-26-2010, 12:52 AM	#7
Tommy Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 195	I remember feeling the same way when I bought my K10D over 3 years ago. I've been using it with non-WR lenses only, in snow and light rain. I found that if I just put my hand on top of the lens, not much water will end up on the lens. But to cover the body the same way is a lot harder and it has been nice to see the WR of the K10D body working when the snow melts on it and I can later just wipe of the water with a towel. I guess you will want to use your gear in humid environment for a longer time and my worries have mostly been with the non sealed mount. I don't have any really expensive lenses so I don't worry too much about them. Should they be ruined by humidity I would replace them with WR lenses though. Not sure if I am of much help here but I would say that having a WR body with a non-WR lens is definitely not meaningless, but also having a WR lens is of course even better. /Tommy

03-26-2010, 03:00 AM	#8
Douglas_of_Sweden Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Stockholm Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,374	Originally posted by uchinakuri Actually, im thinking of getting the body only.. I have three generations of the 18-55 lenses because for every digital Pentax I have bought I have realised that when I buy the kit lens together with the body I get it so much cheaper than if I later on regret this and want to buy it separately. Considering that this solve your concern and give you the option (with the 18-55 WR) to go completely sealed to the beach or other difficult location, I would suggest that you get the kit lens package. Then you can start looking for your first prime without being too worried about if it is WR or not. Being sealed is just one of the nice K-7 features. It is small, does that mean that any other lens than the pancake ltds are meaningless? It is extremely silent, does that mean that all screw drive lenses are meaningless and you should only get the silent SDM lenses? It is black, does that rule out the metallic FA ltd lenses etc etc.

03-26-2010, 04:03 AM	#9
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,886	I would agree with wheatfield here I consider WR as additional insurance, not a functional benefit. weather resistant does not mean weatherproof, and regardless of how well things are sealed, shooting in bad conditions requires protection of the camera.. about a year ago, a poster wrote that his camera failed after his usual practice of coming in from bad weather and washing the camera in the kitchen sink under a running tap. He couldn't understand why, he had done it many times previously.

03-26-2010, 04:17 AM	#10
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	First of all, you can certainly shoot in most conditions with a non sealed lens. I think that a zoom would be more dangerous than a prime just because if it is non sealed, it will tend to draw water/ dust into it with its zooming action. The second thing is that it is worth getting the sealed kit lens with the K7. You can easily sell it for more than you paid for it if you don't like it, but it is small, light weight, has good image quality and I think you will like it, but if not, you can easily sell it for 175 and make a little money on the side.

03-26-2010, 04:21 AM	#11
HeavyD Inactive Account Join Date: May 2009 Location: New York Posts: 155	Originally posted by uchinakuri Actually, im thinking of getting the body only.. I just purchased a K-7 kit with the 18-55mm WR lens from Abes for $994. Body only is $897, less than $100 difference. You can sell the 18-55mm WR lens for more than $100. Get the kit.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-26-2010, 05:32 AM	#12
glanglois Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Madison, Wis., USA Posts: 1,506	Please note that Pentax speak of the WR lenses as "resistant" not "sealed". It seems to be a different and lesser level of protection. The WR lenses should be OK with the occasional splash, as Pentax specifically mentions resistant to "splashes". OTOH, I recall that they didn't note any resistance to dust and at least one article indicated that Pentax directly excluded dust resistance from their description environmental protecfion. My conclusions: Use UV or similar filter on the beach. I expect you would anyway but sacrificing an inexpensive filter to wear from sand and cleaning is a good strategy. And use caution if it's windy. Lenses that telescope are air pumps - air goes out and in when the lens extends and retracts. At least that's what it looks like to me. Perhaps in the worst case, a local shop can clean the dust out for much less than the cost of a replacement lens. The real point is that you have a fine camera and wonderful opportunities with it. With a little care, there's no point in leaving it at home!!

03-26-2010, 05:57 AM	#14
Danny Delcambre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 550	Suggest WR 18-55mm because you can shoot indoors. Non-wr 18-55 can't use indoors and it slow.

03-26-2010, 08:17 AM	#15
Entropy Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Owego, NY Posts: 976	Originally posted by Danny Delcambre Suggest WR 18-55mm because you can shoot indoors. Non-wr 18-55 can't use indoors and it slow. Um, this doesn't make sense. Why would the WR work indoors and the non-WR not work indoors? The non-WR and WR 18-55s have the same aperture ratings, and the AL II version of the kit lens is (to my knowledge) optically identical to the WR. The difference between these lenses is whether you would want to use them in a harsh outdoor environment... Makes no difference indoors unless you're taking pictures in the shower or after a fire sprinkler system has engaged.