Panasonic 100-300mm II may not be splash proof

lcubed11 wrote:

wpbarr wrote:

I did a side-by-side between the 7-14 and 8-18. Edges and corners, the 7-14 is the clear loser at all focal lengths. Even at 5.6, the Panny is quite a bit better.

are you replying to the right thread?

Earlier in the thread I mentioned that with the 100-300mm failing at being weather sealed, that I didn't have a trust in the weather sealing ability of the Panny lenses compared to Olympus.  I did mention that my next big lens purchase might be either the Olympus 7-14mm lens or the Panasonic 8-18mm lens, to give me a weather sealed and faster lens than the 9-18mm lens I currently use.

Given that ultimately I was able to lightly thump the 100-300mm mark II and whatever was blocking the gears moved and the lens seems to be working, I am willing to consider Panasonic weather sealed lenses again.  But due to the experience, I think I will always favor the Olympus weather sealing.

I did see this comparison of the Olympus 7-14mm, Panasonic-Leica 8-18mm, and Panasonic 7-14mm:

• https://www.cameralabs.com/leica-dg-8-18mm-f2-8-4-review/

zuikowesty wrote:

wpbarr wrote:

I did a side-by-side between the 7-14 and 8-18. Edges and corners, the 7-14 is the clear loser at all focal lengths. Even at 5.6, the Panny is quite a bit better.

I've not seen reviews that back this up. Care to post some examples? I like the idea of a removable hood and filters, and the extra reach, but nothing I've seen so far on the 8-18 has been enough to convince me to trade in my 7-14.

-

Of relevance to this thread, I know the 7-14 is well sealed. How is the 8-18 in this regard?

I sold my O 7-14mm f/1.8 to fund my PL 8-18mm, so don't have side-by-side comparisons, but I have had enough experience with each to satisfy myself that they are both in the same league IQ-wise, but I far prefer the range, size/ weight, and the filter solution of the PL 8-18mm.  Having said that, if you need the additional 1mm on the wide end or the constant f/2.8, the 7-14 is one heck of a fine lens.

I don't know that the weather sealing of one is necessarily better than the other (Panasonic have been making weather sealed lenses for some time), but the 7-14's bulbous more protruding front lens is a much bigger raindrop magnet then the 8-18mm's front element, and besides I feel that the presence of a front UV haze filter provides an additional barrier to water splashing on the front end.

-- hide signature --

Shawn Wright
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuikowesty
http://blog.corsequere.com

OzRay wrote:

Kuppenbender wrote:

453C wrote:

I'd give those a try in a sealed bag or container if I was trying to dry out camera gear. I don't know how well rice works, but I know desiccants do.

Rice is a desiccant.

Not nearly as effective as silica gel, but a desiccant all the same.

I prefer rice with my curries rather than silica gel.

I admit the silica can be pretty chewy, but it really holds the flavour. 

Don't use the stuff with a moisture indicator, though. Cobalt (II) chloride is carcinogenic.

Kuppenbender wrote:

OzRay wrote:

Kuppenbender wrote:

453C wrote:

I'd give those a try in a sealed bag or container if I was trying to dry out camera gear. I don't know how well rice works, but I know desiccants do.

Rice is a desiccant.

Not nearly as effective as silica gel, but a desiccant all the same.

I prefer rice with my curries rather than silica gel.

I admit the silica can be pretty chewy, but it really holds the flavour.

Don't use the stuff with a moisture indicator, though. Cobalt (II) chloride is carcinogenic.

I think I'm gonna be ill...🤒

Kdgast wrote:

I just came from a whale watching/photography outing this week in Juneau, Alaska. I was using a Panasonic G85 with an Olympus 14-150 II and the Panasonic 100-300 II. We had rough seas and heavy blowing rains. The camera and both lenses were soaked numerous times. I dried them with a towel and kept shooting. They all performed flawlessly throughout that day and for the rest of the week during my trip through the Inside Passage. I am totally impressed with the way everything held up under some very harsh conditions.

I find this confusing, i don't think you don't used the zoombarrel in that week wile taking images in those conditions. one has a problem in rain using the zoombarrel a other is nearly swimming in the rain and mud and just wash of the dirt under a tab and has no problems?

Is there  a sort off official rating of weather resistancesness?

like, walking in the pooring rain with a wr set shutdown  in the open fine, not use the zoombarrel  wile rain is dripping of your gear or something?

or is WR grade totaly build on bravery of the consumer and if you end up with a moist/wet lenssystem inside the wr barrier , well try your insurance or just buy a new one? no garantie of the manufactorer? Or guideline of proofen resistance?

It starting to look like the watches, 10m wr  isn't for swimming but for rain and showering.

if you don't dive til 8m below surface those watches should be holding there case dry otherwize the 10m mark is wrong. yes i have 100m diving watch, for max 40m scubadiving..🤔

I always feel that a light thunk is an atavistic way to fix a lot of things, Michael.  But seriously, I am hopeful that weather resistance will keep lenses from the dire fate of mildew in a humid climate.  As well as the resistance from shooting in iight drizzle.  O ring seals are a good idea.  I may look into a camera just for all weather water blast conditions.  Even if it is a one lens baby, like the old Nikonos.  Sony is introducing a tiny submersible.  Maybe that is worth having for heavy weather on sea or on a stormy beach.  Glad your Lumix is back in service.  I got two X series lenses. Stlll serve me well even after several years.  Be well.

Gerry Siegel wrote:

I always feel that a light thunk is an atavistic way to fix a lot of things, Michael.

-

But seriously, I am hopeful that weather resistance will keep lenses from the dire fate of mildew in a humid climate.

Weather sealing does not help much with internal mold and mildew.

Firstly, this is not a hermetically sealed volume which has been backfilled with dry, inert gas, it is filled with the atmosphere around you, which may be relatively high humidity, depending on ambient conditions whenever you mounted the lens and subsequent diffusion of atmosphere across the seals.

Secondly, unless your lens' focusing and zooming elements are all internally adjusted only, the extension and contraction of the lens barrels force volumes of air to be sucked in and blown out across the seals.

Whether or not you have weather sealed lenses and camera bodies, you must maintain a disciplined care of your optics whenever exposed to very humid environments.  For example, if I've been out in the rain, I dry off as best I can and when I get back into a dry environment (after temperature stabilizes) I will remove lenses and dry out as appropriate.  In extreme cases this may require fresh desicant in bag or box.  When I lived in Japan I kept my equipment in an electronic dry cabinet, but where I live now is relatively dry and in an air-conditioned space year round.

As well as the resistance from shooting in iight drizzle. O ring seals are a good idea. I may look into a camera just for all weather water blast conditions. Even if it is a one lens baby, like the old Nikonos. Sony is introducing a tiny submersible. Maybe that is worth having for heavy weather on sea or on a stormy beach. Glad your Lumix is back in service. I got two X series lenses. Stlll serve me well even after several years. Be well.

Happy it is working

F.

OzRay wrote:

3dwag wrote:

Secondly, unless your lens' focusing and zooming elements are all internally adjusted only, the extension and contraction of the lens barrels force volumes of air to be sucked in and blown out across the seals.

Not necessarily, the 4/3 lenses breathe from the rear. With the 4/3 bodies, you could feel the air exiting near the release tab.

Clarification appreciated, though when I say "seals" I'm talking about both camera and lens seals, assuming that both camera and lens are weather-sealed, and I'd expect that on my E-3, E-5 camera bodies there were also seals around the lens release button, which may have been a principal region of pressure release, though I never really noticed.

The upshot of all this is that there is some exchange of humidified air from the wet ambient into the lens/ body assembly, particularly during zooming with telescoping lens barrels, and to a much lesser degree around any rotating seals such as focus and zoom rings, even if the optics movements are only internal to the lens.

This was very evident with the likes of the 50-200mm 4/3 lens, which I no longer have. All my current lenses are ostensibly internal zoom and focus, so you can't detect anything.

-- hide signature --

Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
https://australianimage.com.au

Sranang Boi wrote:

But they were not plashes, were they. You appear to have given the lens a proper rinse.

Splashes would have a higher pressure than rinsing with water though, if the lens can't tolerate a gentle water rinse then it's very unlikely it can tolerate getting hit with a splash.

3dwag wrote:

zuikowesty wrote:

wpbarr wrote:

I did a side-by-side between the 7-14 and 8-18. Edges and corners, the 7-14 is the clear loser at all focal lengths. Even at 5.6, the Panny is quite a bit better.

I've not seen reviews that back this up. Care to post some examples? I like the idea of a removable hood and filters, and the extra reach, but nothing I've seen so far on the 8-18 has been enough to convince me to trade in my 7-14.

-

Of relevance to this thread, I know the 7-14 is well sealed. How is the 8-18 in this regard?

I sold my O 7-14mm f/1.8 to fund my PL 8-18mm, so don't have side-by-side comparisons, but I have had enough experience with each to satisfy myself that they are both in the same league IQ-wise, but I far prefer the range, size/ weight, and the filter solution of the PL 8-18mm. Having said that, if you need the additional 1mm on the wide end or the constant f/2.8, the 7-14 is one heck of a fine lens.

I haven't seen the 8-18 yet, but it's good to hear that it holds up well in comparison. Not sure that I *need* either the 7mm or the constant aperture, since it is only a hobby for me...

I don't know that the weather sealing of one is necessarily better than the other (Panasonic have been making weather sealed lenses for some time), but the 7-14's bulbous more protruding front lens is a much bigger raindrop magnet then the 8-18mm's front element, and besides I feel that the presence of a front UV haze filter provides an additional barrier to water splashing on the front end.

You are right about the raindrop magnet! It can be frustrating to use in wet conditions for this reason. I actually pulled out my 7.5mm FE for some waterfall shots this summer, after giving up with the 7-14. With a 1-2s exposure, it was impossible to keep the front element dry that long, but at least it seemed to affect the image less on the 7.5mm. The 12-40 ended up being the most useable, as the water was less noticeable in the final images.

-- hide signature --

Shawn Wright
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuikowesty
http://blog.corsequere.com

-- hide signature --

-Dennis W.
Austin, Texas
http://www.pbase.com/3dwag/image/97156660.jpg