On 9/12/06 12:36 PM, "Thibouille", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 16-50/2.8 is said to be about 1000 dollars. > > 2006/9/12, Mike Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> What is the purpose of a weather sealed body without any sealed >> lenses? I imagine that the two upcoming lenses (16-50/2.8 being one) >> will be weather sealed. If so, that's going to be an expensive lens, >> given the super-sonic motor and fast aperture... Perhaps Pentax's >> most expensive zoom? Pentax has typically produced high priced primes >> (A* and FA*, FA Limiteds), but not really the expensive zooms (barr >> the 24-90 and a couple of FA* zooms). >> >> Is my reasoning correct? >> >> Mike As someone posted while ago (thought it was Pal), FA series lenses were initially meant to be weather proof ones, just like PZ-1 was initially meant to be a pro-body. With aperture rings gone (I assume) and with in-lens AF etc, it might be easier for them to make it weather proof (IF etc). In Japanese JIS standard, there are several classes of water proof (up to 7 or 8 ) and cameras/lenses of this class are probably designed for drip proof (or rain proof). You cannot submerge them in water for any length of time but momentarily up to 1 metre depth etc. If Pentax made the K10D weather (or moisture)/dust proof, it must have been done for purpose and it is quite reasonable to expect the compatible level of weather proof on matching lenses as well (even if not all lenses might be so). Well, there is a big partial umbrella over the lens mount seam ;-). Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
