DA* 16-50mm Serial Number Database. - Page 24

ZigDaPig · 05-13-2009, 07:44 AM

Just a follow-up on the thread (pages 11 and 19) :

Since I seemed to have no other option, I agreed to have the lens repaired (which would mean that I'd have to pay > 500$).
(The other options were that they would not send it back at all, or send it back unrepaired, so those were no real options...)

So I sent a mail to the headquarters of Pentax Germany and Japan, that I had not dropped the lens, and therefore, did not find it correct that I had to pay the repair costs.
At about the same time I received my lens back (and paid for it), I received an answer from Pentax, stating that I could send it back to Pentax Germany directly, and they would then have another look at the lens.

This is the first part which I don't understand at all, because it had been repaired already, so sending it back would not allow them to see the original issue.

So I decided not to do this, and try to put this whole horrid story (and the loss of money, equivalent to the price of a DA* 55mm 1.4 lens) behind me, since I finally had my lens back and it was repaired.

But guess what : I only used the lens for a couple of shots, and the more I started using it, the slower the AF became... It went from slow, to sluggish, to reeaaally sluggish, and then it finally completely stopped working (over a short period of time).
Now, I had no other option than to send it back, so after contacting Pentax again, I sent it to Pentax Germany directly.

Now, 2 weeks later, I am very surprised to receive a brand new lens !
This is the 2nd part I don't get : if the lens was a "good" lens, which broke because I dropped it, they would have repaired it again.
Now that they sent me a brand new lens, I am almost certain that the original lens really had some defect which they could not fix, hence it would have been a "bad" lens all along from the start !

So, on the one hand (although I did not try it yet, cross my fingers !) I am happy to receive a new copy of the lens,
but on the other hand, I am now even more confident that they made me pay
> 500 $ for repairing a copy which should not have been put on the market in the first place.

At least for Pakhead, the guy on this forum who had exactly the same issues as I did, they directly replaced his lens from the first time, without charging repair costs (he also had the loose part inside the lens, something of which Pentax claims to me that it cannot happen unless I dropped the lens).

So PentaxPoke, I think your reply to Pakhead's post
("That is the worst experience I have heard yet with this lens.")
can be revised...

ZigDaPig · 05-13-2009, 07:52 AM

Oh, just for the record,

the bad lens I sent back twice already, has the serial nr. 9014563,
and has now been replaced by Pentax with :

9028147 (Still have to test this one...)

Z.

*skinja* · 05-15-2009, 08:27 PM

9030404 is going back tomorrow. Corners almost usable at f11, gets worse to 2.8 Left side is terrible.

*jimH* · 05-18-2009, 05:19 PM

I'm Ignorant what is SDN?

hs57 · 05-20-2009, 02:48 AM

I had a very bad DA*16-50/2.8 SN:9023754
bought in germany.

-Mous- · 05-30-2009, 02:48 PM

9023606 is good. Bought it this friday in The Netherlands.

philippe · 06-04-2009, 01:20 AM

9024464 is not good at infinity, close up looks good, I had to return the lens and the camera for repairing, warranty, bought in Belgium (De Beukelaer).

little laker · 06-07-2009, 03:26 PM

I've seen some stunning results from this lens.
However I'm wondering why Pentax hasn't told Tokina to either fix the issues, or just shove it

I believe that it got released 2 or more years ago, which should be more than enough time to work the bugs out of any lens.

From what I've seen the Tamron 17 - 50mm f2.8 also has equally stunning results, with far less quality control issues.
so it would be my replacement choice if I was Pentax.

Bart · 06-08-2009, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by philippe

9024464 is not good at infinity, close up looks good, I had to return the lens and the camera for repairing, warranty, bought in Belgium (De Beukelaer).

Hi Philippe,
At what shop did you buy it? De Beukelaer is the importer.

That is: if you don't mind the question.

krypticide · 06-10-2009, 11:38 PM

Just got mine, serial 9028850. CA (chromatic aberration, for the search engine) is pretty bad at f/2.8, but I'm not sure if it's worse than is normal?

From a 100% magnification in Lightroom (screenshot) of crinkled foil (at f/4.0, so not even fully open), with purple fringing correction at maximum:

little laker · 06-10-2009, 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by krypticide

Just got mine, serial 9028850. CA (chromatic aberration, for the search engine) is pretty bad at f/2.8, but I'm not sure if it's worse than is normal?

From a 100% magnification in Lightroom (screenshot) of crinkled foil (at f/4.0, so not even fully open), with purple fringing correction at maximum:

krypticide,
Foil will reflect anything, and the camera might just be picking up something your eyes can't see.
I don't know what test to recommend, although if it was my lens I'd try a normal everyday shot and see what it looks like.

Maynerd · 06-11-2009, 07:33 AM

9014663 is a good copy as far as I can tell, it's a little soft wide open, but no focusing issues. Bought from Henry's in Toronto.

Edit:

Check that. Upon further investigation (i.e. testing) This lens is nowhere near as good as it should be. I have contacted Pentax Canada and will be sending it in for testing/repair. At least it has a 2 year warranty.

Disappointed/hanging head.

If only...

*MidwestMax* · 06-12-2009, 10:58 PM

Has anyone with a good copy bought theirs at Buydig?

*keith.s* · 06-21-2009, 11:31 AM

9028969

Razor sharp at f/8 corner to corner
Plenty sharp at f/2.8 with uniform corners
More distortion at 16mm than my 16-45 f/4. Can live with it.

After a bungled PayPal transaction on eBay for a DA* 35mm, I ended up buying (gambling on) this lens at Amazon.com. Had it shipped halfway across the globe (while I had anxiety attacks and sleepless nights

). The gamble paid off. Woohooo!

This is my first SDM/USM/whateverM. Amazed at how silent it is and how smoothly the subject comes into focus. Also, the AF accuracy has perished all thoughts of switching to Canikon. Can't wait till I can afford the K-7.

PS: I love the serial number too. Ends with my fav 2 digit sequence ;-)

Cheers,
Keith

*TysonG* · 06-26-2009, 04:11 PM

My copy, 90306xx (I'm still not comfortable posting serial numbers in public), recently bought from B&H, appears to function fine in real-world tests. When/if if I test it formally with focus charts I will update this post.

Overall, gotta say I love the lens--and this coming fro all-Limited prime shooter (21, 43, 77). Sure there's some distortion and CA/PF every now and then, but that's nothing I haven't seen in the each of the Limiteds themselves and nothing one can't easily fix in post.

Guess that's what this lens can do when you have a good copy. For those who've been burned by the QA issues, my heart goes to you—you should rightfully be able to enjoy the goodness of this lens as it was designed (very sharp, great color rendition, creamy bokeh).