Why weather-sealed cameras and lenses are great

In the past 2 weeks, I've photographed cross country meets in the rain.  In one, it was an absolute downpour.  It was amusing to see people cradling and coddling their equipment because they didn't want to get it wet, while I stood boldly out in the weather.  (Yes, I was rather soaked but I got the photos I wanted.)

When I first bought my Four-Thirds equipment in 2004, I bought the Olympus E-1, the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 and the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5, all of which were weather-sealed.

Later in 2004, not satisfied with doing indoor sports and photos of flowers and animals and birds, I put myself and my equipment outside in three hurricanes.  Shooting in 75 mph winds is incredible, especially when rain is hitting you and reminding you that you can be hurt.

Olympus weather-sealed lenses are amazing

After each hurricane experience, I would go inside, and dry the equipment as much as possible and let it sit for a while before returning to the weather.  In numerous occasions since then, I've used my 50-200mm lens and Olympus E-1, especially for cross country.  It was only in late 2011 when it ceased to be my primary camera body, and an E-5 started to be.  The 50-200mm serves me regularly in outdoor sports, and can even be used on the Panasonic GH3, also weather-sealed, through a weather-sealed adapter.

I can't imagine taking out any other specification of equipment.  I have a Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 lens that was meant for the Leica Digilux 3.  It's quite sturdy but lacks the weather-sealing.  Considering that it was about the same price as the 50-200mm, it seems odd that it's not sealed but it is a Leica lens, even if it was supposedly hand assembled by Panasonic instead of Leica at about 1/3 the cost.

Seeing as how Nikon has embraced the ocean with their Nikon 1 AW1 and so many others such as Pentax are putting more of their lines into weather-sealed equipment, will the third parties finally do something?

As far as I can tell neither Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina have any weather-sealed lenses.  That would be a shame, especially with the Bigma 50-500mm lens.  To me, any lens priced at over US$500 should be sealed.  I'd hope that more companies would take care of it.  Can you afford to take your best equipment (or your only equipment) into a storm?

Update 2013.11.27: I'd love to take advantage of some of the lens deals out there.  The Olympus M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8 looks a treat, and with a discount, even better.  However, the moment it's wet and stops functioning, I'd have to buy something else to replace it.  Similarly, the 75mm f/1.8 is great but could be affected by bad weather.  Within micro Four-Thirds, there are 5 weather-sealed lenses now: Olympus 12-50mm, 60mm macro, Panasonic 12-35mm, 35-100mm, and Olympus 12-40mm with the 40-150mm arriving in 2014.  I did everything with 3 lenses for years, though 150mm is not quite 200mm (40-150mm f/2.8 vs 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5), so I can't reach as far, although there is supposedly a 1.4x tele-converter due in 2014.

Update 2014.12.14: It's been over a year since my last update.  Pentax seems to be the least expensive way to get weather-resistant camera bodies, with the K-50.  They're also good enough to mark their lenses with WR to signify weather resistance.

micro Four-Thirds hasn't gained much ground.  The E-M5, E-M1, GH3, and GH4 are all weather-sealed camera bodies, but the number of corresponding weather-sealed lenses is still minimal.  The Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 has been released, as has its 1.4x teleconverter.  Yes, the teleconverter works with only one lens as of now.

That said, Olympus have a 7-14mm f/2.8 ultra-wide angle lens, along with a 300mm f/4.0 super telephoto lens scheduled for 2015.  A number of Four-Thirds lenses are still available, which work reasonably well with the E-M1 and GH3 and GH4 using auto focus.

As I'm now getting into video, I'm looking at certain adapted lenses that are not weather-sealed.  While this area is in drought, that's generally not a problem but for dust.  Someone recommended the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens with the Metabones (essentially a reverse tele-converter) Speed Booster adapter.  This is supposedly a great lens but the ART series lenses are not weather-sealed.

Update 2015.04.29: I recently added the Pentax K-50 to my bag.  Both the body and the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens are weather-sealed.  It's a good, low cost option if you're on a budget.  I don't have any other lenses for it, so I should pick carefully, but one of the lenses that has been on my list is the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 ART lens, which is not weather-sealed.  I have a hate-hate relationship with Sigma but they've come a long way in the last two years.  I'll probably buy their USB dock also, so I can fix the front/back focus problems that they usually have.

Otherwise, I could buy the Pentax 16-50mm f/2.8, which is a sturdy, reliable Pentax lens but that maximum aperture means a lot and if I'm more concerned about getting the shot indoors or in lower light, the Sigma would be better, even though its focal length range is very limited.  The Pentax lens is better overall.

Olympus has an 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lens that will be available this summer--which likely means September 30th.   It will likely be the first fisheye lens I'll ever own, and since it is weather-sealed, it will be useful not just for skate parks, but for beach and bad weather photos too.

Update 2016.04.03: I gave away the Pentax K-50, and since then, I bought a Nikon D7200.  I've now got three lenses, none of which seems to be weather-sealed.

Sadly, I've been learning that outside Olympus, weather-sealing is not quite as comprehensive.  It seems that a lot of products are given a gasket to keep liquid from entering the camera body and perhaps, a fluorine coating on the frontmost lens element to resist liquids.  I would hope that there are also gaskets around zoom and focus rings, etc. but it doesn't sound as though it happens.

Considering that lenses last longer than bodies, why not do more for the lenses?

The Olympus 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lens is well built.  I'm thinking that it is as weather-resistant as the 12-40mm f/2.8 and all of the Olympus Four-Thirds SHG and HG lenses.

Disappointed with Olympus' micro Four-Thirds lenses? 2014, 2015 much better

I don't know how not to offend the fanboys with this one.  I'm really disappointed with Olympus' lenses for micro Four-Thirds cameras.  While I can appreciate the desire for small equipment, compromise is better left to other companies that have more fanboys.

This may seem nonsense to someone who had never used the Four-Thirds High Grade and Super High Grade lenses.  Their standard series was, shall we say, sufficient for many people.

I'm not a snob about equipment, but I'd rather not risk my equipment on weather or dust.  When I originally bought my Olympus E-1 in April 2004, Olympus only had weather-sealed lenses for Four-Thirds.  I bought the ZD 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and the ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5.  Those aren't huge maximum apertures but they worked well enough, and the lenses used a 67mm filter.  I used the 50-200mm during three of the four hurricanes in 2004 and never bet against the seals.  I shot, I dried and repeated as necessary.  The lenses work quite well to this day, and so does the E-1.

The only Four-Thirds lens I have that is not weather-sealed is the fairly expensive Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4--the normal lens.  You figure US$500 for a normal lens with an f/1.4 maximum aperture and twice as much for one that can be used wide open, unlike those from Canon and Nikon that have to be stopped down to get good sharpness.  This one comes around US$1000 and works well wide open, as do the HG and SHG lenses from Olympus.  It works as expected, except that I'm concerned that it might rain.

Now, with my journey into micro Four-Thirds, I have to pick lenses much more carefully, as though I was shopping for Canon or Nikon equipment.  I prefer simpler choices.  Currently, Olympus offers a great 60mm macro lens and the craptacular 12-50mm zoom.  Yes, I get it, at 12mm any lens will distort more than a lens at 14mm.  You have to use a more expensive lens design to get around it.  The 12-60mm f/2.8-4.0 Four-Thirds lens distorts apparently terribly but they were more concerned with the focusing speed than the optical characteristics, it seems.

Panasonic offers two weather-sealed lenses at the moment: the 35-100mm f/2.8 (US$1499.99) that I have and the 12-35mm f/2.8 that I don't need.  Both are rather expensive for the plastic-y bodies, Made in China, compromises that they are.  (Supposedly, the 12-35mm isn't a Made in China product but are they all from one country or the other?)  As I've been saying, the 35-100mm doesn't really seem too much worse than what you get from Canon or Nikon--you stop down the aperture to get good sharpness.  Since many people are switching from those brands, they'll probably be okay with the compromise.  Given that the sensor in the GH3 is better than the one in the E-5, I can live with that under low light circumstances.  However, compared to the ZD SHG 35-100 f/2.0, Panasonic's lens is not very good at all but then, I don't really have much faith in the Canon or Nikon 70-200mm either, though my opinion of the Nikon lens is more positive.

Olympus recently created a second generation of a 75-300mm lens that needs very bright light to be useful.  The maximum aperture is f/4.8-6.7.  If I was using it to photograph birds, I'd hope that they'd be out in the open sunlight.  More likely, I'd be using the ZD 50-200mm lens with the 1.4x teleconverter and the E-5.  I just don't understand where Olympus is going.  Several people have brought up the point that Olympus is no longer including lens hoods.  Most of their fanboys probably won't need them, even though they should be using them.  I don't carry the 35-100mm f/.0 lens hood with me because I need another bag for it and for the lens hood for the 14-35mm f/2.0.  They're that big.  I'm actually carrying both in the lens bag for the 35-100mm since I don't dare use it for the lens.

If Olympus would deliver the 12-40mm zoom lens (September 2013 announcement?) for which a patent was recently shown, and the aperture was sufficiently large, I would likely buy it, given that it was better than the 12-50mm they already have.  I've seen professionals do good work with that lens, but getting around its flaws may be too much work for me.  The 12-40mm is a larger range to my current ZD 14-35mm but if they stick to their "small and light" philosophy, it will have too many compromises, most likely.  Should you pay over US$1000 for compromises?

Update 2013.07.08: DxO does testing on certain lenses to help with their raw development software.  They just profiled the m.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8 lens.  As many reviews have already stated, it's not very good, but it's nearly half the price of the great lenses.  It's somewhat better than the 17mm f/2.8 lens but that was really horrible from what I've seen.  If the Chromatic Aberration is so strong that you don't have to look for it to find it, that's a lens that should never have been made--Quantaray, anyone?

I guess that makes me think about a new Four-Thirds body or at least one that will use the lenses to full capacity.  It's been rumored to be announced and/or available in the autumn of 2013.  I'll keep hoping.

Update 2013.08.20: How about a craptacular, tiny, Frankenstein's creature of a camera body for Four-Thirds users?  I'll look at the E-M1 but at this point, I cannot see wasting money on something that will not be well-balanced with my 35-100mm f/2.0 lens.  I'm not asking for something the size of the E-5, but the size of the GH3 or E-1 would be appropriate, not the size of the E-M5.  I'm not looking to replace an E-410 or E-510, or E-620.  They were too small and they weren't meant for what I do.  They were casual camera bodies, which is why they were replaced with micro Four-Thirds.  Those people seem pleased with the performance.  I wish I could be.  The GH3, like the E-M5 is good enough for professionals, who aren't in a serious hurry.  Still, with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens, things are looking up.

Update 2013.10.30: Looking back on this, I need to say that I'll have a 12-40mm on order.  The E-M1, while good, was not a replacement for my E-5 or my E-1.  Yes, the image quality is wonderful, but the handling is completely wrong for me.  It's about the same size as the GH3 but the grip was completely uncomfortable and it's not enough to easily allow me to use my ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 with it.  I can't take a tripod or monopod everywhere I have used the thing handheld.  The E-M1 looked better in person than the original photos I saw that seemed to show something cobbled together out of the parts bin.  If they'd put the goodness in the GH3 body, they'd have a sale.

The 12-40mm f/2.8 gives me hope for the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens, as the 12-40mm f/2.8 was wonderful. 

Update 2014.04.10: I got the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 not quite two months ago, and it has been attached to the Panasonic GH3 almost all the time.  I have been quite happy with the combination, and it has given me hope that Olympus has found their way again, and that the GH3 is good for still photography.  The color of the 12-40mm is much better than Panasonic's problematic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens that I also own.  I'm sure I'll be replacing the GH3 as soon as I can trade it for the GH4.  I have two Four-Thirds bodies and don't wish to repeat this with micro Four-Thirds.

The only problem with the "PRO" model lenses from Olympus is that they'll be slow in delivering them.  The 40-150mm f/2.8 will arrive later in 2014, but the 7-14mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4.0 will arrive in 2015.  That still leaves a hole for a 150-300mm f/2.8, which is a lens I would truly like to have--a lightweight 2x zoom with a lot of reach.  It could be the sharpest lens Olympus will have made for micro Four-Thirds, somehow looking toward the Four-Thirds 90-250mm f/2.8 but without the down-payment-for-a-house price.

Update 2014.11.14: As the 40-150mm f/2.8 is available, along with its 1.4x teleconverter, things are moving along.  In previous years, I'd be buying this lens, and possibly the combination of the two, very early to support photographing swim meets.  I haven't been photographing typical high school sports this year, but have been at skate parks.

There are times when I need a longer lens.  I have occasionally used my Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0 on my Olympus E-5.  (It's too much for the E-M1 and even for the Panasonic GH3 or GH4, which handles many Four-Thirds HG lenses well.)  Using the 40-150mm f/2.8 could be useful when not able to move from a spot but it's not all that a wide angle.  Using either the Olympus or Panasonic 35-100mm lenses, I find that there is no perfect lens for what I'm doing.  Are two small bodies hanging from my neck a good idea?

I'm even more interested in the 7-14mm f/2.8 that's supposedly coming in 2015.  I'm not a landscape type of photographer, but there are several occasions when I don't have enough of an angle to get everything.  The 12-40mm f/2.8 has been good but it's not always enough.  My typical thoughts were to buy a camera body with a larger sensor for occasional needs such as this.  How many occasional needs will I have that I should spend US$4000 for a 135 Format combination or even US$3000 for a FujiFilm X-Mount combo? 

In any case, Olympus has finally come to the table with some better than good options.  Similar to the Four-Thirds days before the E-5. 

Be careful who you trounce, you might just know them

Tuesday, I had stopped in the town where I've been helping my friend with his family's Chinese restaurant.  They have various stores such as Target and Staples that this town doesn't have and that aren't closer.

After spending some time talking to him, I visited a few stores and finished, ready to head home.  Someone in a Buick SUV was in the right turn lane and decided that I wasn't important, so they cut me off.  Being that we were getting both heavy wind and heavy rain from Sandy, I thought this was an excellent example of what not to do, unless you wanted to have an accident.

There are over 30 miles from there to my house and it was amusing to find that the person turned into a driveway about 2 miles from my house.  I had been following them the whole way since it was also my way home.  I can only imagine that there might have been a bit of panic from time to time.  "Why is that car still behind me?" and "What are they doing?" would seem to be appropriate thoughts.

Drivers of most cars don't seem to care but SUV drivers seem to think that they can do anything they want, without consequence.  I wonder if that person will think twice next time.

Also considering Hurricane Sandy, I had been watching DirecTV's channel 349 where they routed coverage from New York City and Philadelphia television stations.  I was saddened to see that the Atlantic City, New Jersey boardwalk was gone, and that a lot of the coastal areas were close to gone.  Since the hurricane came ashore in A.C., it's no wonder so much was devastated.  They were also talking about Long Beach Island and its million dollar homes.  What I saw of it always looked a bit craptacular but I wasn't looking for the buildings.

I heard and read that New Jersey's main electric utility had to shut down power to avoid electrocuting people and causing complicated damage and fires.  It was a great decision, but of course, there are people without power.  Some people are also getting sick from the generator fumes, but they're probably keeping the generator in the garage so it doesn't get wet.

Having spent eight years in the area, I think of all the people I met and how I hope that they're fine now.  Having spent a good portion of late 2004 with three hurricanes and without power for part of that, I know that people will survive rough conditions.  I know that people in Philly and New Jersey and New York City can tough it out.  I'm keeping them in my thoughts regardless.