You have to take everything you read on the other forum with a grain
of salt. I suspect that paranoia sets in the moment one of those guys
purchases the 16-50. I doubt that the problems is still evident in
anything other than the minds of the misfits.
Paul
On Nov 10, 2008, at 10:51 AM, William Robb wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Boris Liberman"
Subject: Re: Opinions about DA 17-70/4 SDM wanted
Paul, each time I send a lens to US of A for replacement and each
time
I receive one as it passes through our border, I get to pay money.
After two or three replacement transactions, I'll be better of flying
to NYC and cherry picking the sucker over the counter.
I'm at the point with Pentax glass that I won't buy a new one unless
it is available at my local camera store. The 16-50 is a high risk
offender, the 17-70 looks like the 10-17, just not as wide, and lord
knows what they will get wrong on the 55 and 60-250 (if they ever
manage to put one on the market at all).
For what they are charging for glass, there should be no assembly
problems. They are caling the 16-50 a * lens, and it has almost as
much chance of being outperformed by a cheap store brand lens as it
has of being a good sample.
And, from what I've read on that other forum, they haven't fixed the
problem, which tells me there is an unrepairable flaw in the design.
It's like they are trying to kill the brand.
William Robb
--
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.
