Perhaps you should while it's still under warranty. I hope that my lens was the exception rather than the rule. I tend to think that it was. I've never resorted to extensive testing before. But I'm glad I did this time. Paul On Apr 8, 2008, at 8:50 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > Gads, I'm beginning to believe that I have the only non-defective > DA*16-50 in captivity. Perhaps I shouldn't look too closely at it! ;-) > > G > > On Apr 8, 2008, at 4:56 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I think the DA* 16-50/2.8 is an aberration. All my other lenses >> check out quite nicely. Some adjustment dials them in more >> precisely, but they're all within acceptable range. Apparentlly >> there's some problem involved in the manufacture of the DA* 16-50 >> that sometimes results in a plane of focus that's not uniform. >> That's a different kind of problem than front focus or back focus. >> It can't be corrected with the controls or even with normal service >> procedures. That being said, I'm not sure that a lot of shortcuts >> aren't being taken in manufacturing these days. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > and follow the directions.
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
