[Frogfish]

I did not say it was an excuse. If you have seen any post I have ever made on the subject, you wouldn't have made any assumptions. I strongly think Pentax should put 3 year warranties minimum on their DA* lenses as well as the LTD series ones. However, just because Sigma has a long warranty in and of itself doesn't make them a superior product. They have some excellent lenses and some not so excellent lenses and also have had some qc issues of and on. I was alluding to the Sigma Stigma that was so bad at one point it led to the longer warranties in and effort to over come those. I have owned 3 sigma lenses and had no regrets over them. I still own 1. They weren't cheap lenses however and were also full frame compatible. 15-30, 20-40/2.8 and the one I still have is the 105/2.8 EX DG. The remaining Sigma lens I will be selling only because I got the 100 WR 2 months ago.

Anyone that think Sigma lenses as a whole are the cat's tail, I strongly recommend they sell out and buy a Sigma dSLR and run Sigma lenses. I personally am not into Pentax gear for the purpose of running Sigma glass. Tamron is just a zoom company as far as Pentax goes in reference to K-mount with exception of the 90mm. That rules them out for me since I have only 1 af zoom, the 18-55 WR, in a large part due to the cost of the 16-50 and the SDM and decentering issues it has had although I thought the latter had been fixed.

Edit: The length of Sigma's warranty depends on the Country and the grade of the lens.

I think you are getting all uppity having misunderstood the context of my post. I didn't say anything about you saying it was an excuse ...

1. I said the major manufacturers shouldn't be using their postions as camera manufacturers and producers of supposedly higher quality glass as an excuse not to give proper warranties. If Sigma / Tamron can then Pentax / Canon / Nikon should be able to as well. So in this regard we are in agreement.

2. Therefore no assumption was made because I wasn't talking about you (not that with hundreds of posters on here I have any reason whatsoever to remember any of your posts) !

3. I don't care who manufactures the glass I personally want to buy so long as it meets the criteria a) suits the purpose b) meets the budget c) meets the quality I demand. As you can see from the lenses in my signature.

[Blue]

I think you are getting all uppity having misunderstood the context of my post. I didn't say anything about you saying it was an excuse ...

1. I said the major manufacturers shouldn't be using their postions as camera manufacturers and producers of supposedly higher quality glass as an excuse not to give proper warranties. If Sigma / Tamron can then Pentax / Canon / Nikon should be able to as well. So in this regard we are in agreement.

2. Therefore no assumption was made because I wasn't talking about you (not that with hundreds of posters on here I have any reason whatsoever to remember any of your posts) !

3. I don't care who manufactures the glass I personally want to buy so long as it meets the criteria a) suits the purpose b) meets the budget c) meets the quality I demand. As you can see from the lenses in my signature.

There wasn't a damn thing uppity about what I said nor did I say you were accusing me of making excuses. However, you quoted my post, therefore I made some clarifications. I also agreed and have said many times for several years that DA* lenses should have at least a 3 year warranty, probably 5. However, Sigma isn't a better glass provider lens for lens simply because of a warranty. Sigma had to do that to get out of the Sigma Stigma they got themselves into in the past. Otherwise, Tamron was taking a hammer to them.

[Frogfish]

There wasn't a damn thing uppity about what I said nor did I say you were accusing me of making excuses. However, you quoted my post, therefore I made some clarifications.

re.

I did not say it was an excuse. If you have seen any post I have ever made on the subject, you wouldn't have made any assumptions.

I quite agree nothing uppity about that sentence above in the slightest, nor is there any accusatory tone. Maybe sometimes on a forum it's difficult to get your precise meaning across.

[Blue]

re.



I quite agree nothing uppity about that sentence above in the slightest, nor is there any accusatory tone. Maybe sometimes on a forum it's difficult to get your precise meaning across.

Not really sure if this is sarcasm or what. However, the excuse I was referring to was Pentax's excuse or lack thereof. There has never been and excuse made by them as far as I am aware of. As a matter of fact, they have ignored or flat denied there being a problem with the SDM officially. The decentering issue early on was handled a little better. That said, I don't recall more than a 1 year warranty on most Pentax gear. However, I think they need to go back to the little gold JCII stickers. The DA* certainly deserve a 5 year warranty, at the very least a 3 year one.

On a sarcastic note, I suggest you understand the meaning of a word before tossing at a person.

uppity :

Taking liberties or assuming airs beyond one's place in a social heirarchy. Assuming equality with someone higher up the social ladder.
Mr. Smith does not allow his subordinates to address him by his first name, it shows uppityness and he will put you in your place with a good tongue lashing.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=uppity

[Frogfish]

Not really sure if this is sarcasm or what. However, the excuse I was referring to was Pentax's excuse or lack thereof. There has never been and excuse made by them as far as I am aware of. As a matter of fact, they have ignored or flat denied there being a problem with the SDM officially. The decentering issue early on was handled a little better. That said, I don't recall more than a 1 year warranty on most Pentax gear. However, I think they need to go back to the little gold JCII stickers. The DA* certainly deserve a 5 year warranty, at the very least a 3 year one.

On a sarcastic note, I suggest you understand the meaning of a word before tossing at a person.

Urban Dictionary: uppity

:sarcasm:

I understand the meaning perfectly, you on the other hand ..... The Urban Dictionary ? Really ? I suggest you use a better source in future if you are unsure and need to check again : uppity - presumptuously arrogant. Which is exactly how your post came across and is probably how this one is coming across.

Time to bring this to a close. If you feel the desperate urge to get in the last word then be my guest.

[David&karen]

Hi again. People, can Karen and I just say that I am grateful for ALL your input and have us move ahead? That being said the 3rd lens arrived yesterday after dark and I will test it today. Mechanically and cosmetically it is a winner, but I need to see if it is centered at least reasonably . As to my testing methodology, I am no optical engineer. I use an old adobe barns walls that are 9' tall by 30' wide for the close stuff, and a horizon line with mountains 5 miles away with yucca plants all over the place and telephone poles and highway signs 1 mile away. Then I take regular pics around the farm and make sunstars as I go. Not Photozone by any means but I look for the image softness, if any, to be reasonably symmetric in the frame, and I look for the image to get better as I stop down until I start getting diffraction softening(and even then the edges might continue to improve at the expense of the center). If it is reasonable, I have a winner in my book, something the other 2 copies were not. Please add anything I could do that might shed light, I am ALWAYS open to new ideas!

David

[Blue]

I understand the meaning perfectly, you on the other hand ..... The Urban Dictionary ? Really ? I suggest you use a better source in future if you are unsure and need to check again : uppity - presumptuously arrogant. Which is exactly how your post came across and is probably how this one is coming across.

Time to bring this to a close. If you feel the desperate urge to get in the last word then be my guest.

If anyone was getting uppity it was you. Sure I linked the Urban Dictionary instead of the Merriam-Webster online dictionary since the word is an informal slang term and you an urbanite city slicker. Furthermore, if you can handle a debate or discussion, don't.

[Blue]

Hi again. People, can Karen and I just say that I am grateful for ALL your input and have us move ahead? That being said the 3rd lens arrived yesterday after dark and I will test it today. Mechanically and cosmetically it is a winner, but I need to see if it is centered at least reasonably . As to my testing methodology, I am no optical engineer. I use an old adobe barns walls that are 9' tall by 30' wide for the close stuff, and a horizon line with mountains 5 miles away with yucca plants all over the place and telephone poles and highway signs 1 mile away. Then I take regular pics around the farm and make sunstars as I go. Not Photozone by any means but I look for the image softness, if any, to be reasonably symmetric in the frame, and I look for the image to get better as I stop down until I start getting diffraction softening(and even then the edges might continue to improve at the expense of the center). If it is reasonable, I have a winner in my book, something the other 2 copies were not. Please add anything I could do that might shed light, I am ALWAYS open to new ideas!

David

Given the expense of a DA*, I would get an extended warranty for it.

[David&karen]

I did get a Mack 7 year warranty, but I need a good copy of the lens now!

[liukaitc]

....that why I feel buying used lens is even more reliable...
because people already used them, so tested without problem...
I am kind worrying buying new gear....so irony.....
my pentax k-5, 16-50 and 50-135 all bought used...
no problem, work great...

[pz1fan]

....that why I feel buying used lens is even more reliable...
because people already used them, so tested without problem...
I am kind worrying buying new gear....so irony.....
my pentax k-5, 16-50 and 50-135 all bought used...
no problem, work great...

Agree. When buying used newer model lenses, I've also had the best luck when the original owner has used it for a while. I've also had the worst luck buying a used in production lens that was "used once".

[David&karen]

Well....lens number 3 is being sent back. It is lots better than the other 2 but at 34/36mm(could not get 35mm in exif) the right side of the frame never sharpens up. Also at 21mm both sides of the frame never get really sharp, but that is consistent and I would not of rejected the lens just for that. But the 34/36mm issue is really obvious and kills this lens for me. I did load the s/n's into the lens database, but I do not want to say which vendor as they are great to me and this is not their fault. Now comes the choices for the alternative: it looks like a WR lens is just not gonna happen here, so maybe the sigma 17-50 OS and then some Pentax primes, or get a 18-135 WR like my wife has and some primes. Suggestions??

David

[David&karen]

Not to hijack my own thread but I just finished borrowing a Pentax 17-70 and I must say it's very nice! That thing is sharp except in the extreme corners at 17mm f4, and the borders at 70mm until f8 or so. It at least has a gasket on the lens mount if not total WR specs.

David

[wlachan]

Not WR but if 2.8 standard zoom is really what you needed, maybe you should give the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 a serious look instead of keep fishing for the non-exist. There is simply none or even similar quality zoom for Pentax. Choose Pentax for their lovely primes which are pretty much the only charm Pentax has to offer these days.

[David&karen]

I disagree. If I wanted Canon, that is what I would of had. BTW, Canon has it's own issues with it's AF, and more than one photog had to change systems because of that(google it if need be, but not to start another issue here). The reason for the f2.8 zoom was supposed to be quality of the shorter zoom ratio lens, the aperture blades, and WR. So far, the 17-70 I borrowed has the quality, and it made lovely sunstars, it at least has a mount base gasket - though not full WR capability.

David