Originally posted by habsfanusa I've been following this thread with great interest (and increasing disgust at Pentax). Sorry for the melodrama but here's my quick story:...
So then I started my lens research, from the ground up - and when i started checking on others' experience with my must-have walkabout, the DA* 16-50 (an utter ABSENCE of QC at Pentax in a lens that lists at ≈$1,200), i was frankly shocked.
My astonishment only grew as I've followed these threads here - the comment earlier in this thread about an (apparently scratched) element (in a lens bought new !) resembling an astrology map in particular comes to mind.
[I even emailed Pentax a week ago asking for reassurance regarding the DA*16-50 QC question, and got a lame response to the effect that SDM motors from their subcontractor two years were a problem that was then solved. I replied with a literally "are you kidding me - do you guys read these forums, you must be aware that the problem is far more encompassing than that" - type communication, sent twice - but no reply. Interesting !]
So my new-found friends, PLEASE jump in with some guidance.
For instance, am i misguided regarding the in-camera HDR ? I prefer to do the bracketing in the shot, not post-processing. I do a lot of landscapes, i understand the need for a tripod. And any/every comment regarding lens options would be welcome. I am partial to "OEM" lenses over Tamron, Sigma et al - bit not absolutely opposed.
Thank you !
Though the experience of the thread opener has indeed the power to deter a would-be-Pentax-buyers, I do not think it is by any means representative. - Which most of the answers in this thread will also emphasize.
The 55-300mm lens which is on your wish-list is also one, of which I never saw any seriously bad comment. The 16-50 is another story. My own copy died within weeks of buying it, but is working fine after warranty repair.
So, yes, Pentax QC is not as good as it should be and for many years it wasn't. But in all fairness, I have seen similarly bad experiences with people buying Canons or Nikons on the web as well.
For instance: the slight misalignement in aperture blades should certainly not be there. But I have seen so many lenses with similar asymmetries, that I have the feeling, that this can be caused by many different things, including a hard knock or whatever. And even though several of my own lenses show similar asymmetries, I cannot say, that the image quality was compromised by that.
Fot third party lenses: I have been using third party lenses since starting photography nearly 30 years ago. At the beginning I had some bad experience with low cost brands (the Cosina among them) and in film days only bought the Tokina ATX lenses besides Pentax ones, not the least because of their superb build-quality.
In digital days I soon realized, that Sigma had taken on the challenge and provided some very fine glass. Now I use five Sigma EX lenses besides my Pentax glass and two Tamrons. All in all the Sigmas provide (in my personal opinion) excellent value with much better built than Tamrons and the image quality is just about as good as it gets. Tamron makes good glass, but is let down by the plasticky feeling, that goes with them.
I do not hesitate to buy Pentax lenses and also don't hesitate about Sigma. My decisive point is always availability: if I cannot get a certain lens from Pentax, I buy Sigma. And so far I have never been disappointed and had only two QC problems (the said DA 16-50 and one Sigma Apo-tc falling apart) - which I find acceptable, considering the amount of equipment I store in my cupboards...
Ben