Well, I've Had Enough

**interested_observer** · 09-22-2016, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by caliscouser

The problem is the cat's been out of the bag for a long time now. It is already a PR disaster. Are they quietly helping customers as a matter of policy now? Probably not. They could have put this all to bed long ago quite easily.

If the problem is largely solved as of a quiet 2012 re-design then for any newly purchased lenses warranty the SDM for life or 6 years (choose a number). Put the price up on the lens to cover any additional warranty costs if needed. Moving forward the problem is then gone.

For those already purchased lenses that experience a failure at least subsidize the repair cost. A nominal cost say $50 (rather than the $200+ or whatever it is now), throw in a free calibration and cleaning at the same time. Problem mitigated for a modest financial hit.

Not bagging on Pentax / Ricoh for the fun of it here. I love the company and products (I've owned 7 K bodies, 2 Q's and film bodies). I know they have been financially challenged as a company, but it's the apparent ineptitude that's frustrating at times.

Ok, rant over. I'm happy Steve's situation has been speedily resolved and hope this is sign of better things to come.

The amount of customer good will that would have been generated would have been large and long lasting. However, the opposite in the form of the lingering death, the fear of the SDM fiasco that just keeps giving - and to some degree just poisons the brand. I just do not understand it at all.

Poit · 09-23-2016, 06:39 PM

Hmmmm....I bought a 16-50 in 2014 on the understanding that it had been redesigned, and SDM issues were a thing of the past. I've never had an issue with it....

Are people now suggesting that the 'modern' copies of this lens are prone to failure as well? Have people reported recent serial numbers with failures? I'm very fond of this lens, and don't want to be nervous about an impending failure.

sarge · 09-24-2016, 02:11 AM

Glad to hear Ricoh/Pentax made it right for you.
It was stories like these, (multiple failures of SDM motors), that caused me to get a Sigma 17-50 2.8 when it was time for me to get a fast normal zoom.
The way this issue was handled must have cost Pentax some money and perhaps users.

Nicolas06 · 09-24-2016, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by Poit

Hmmmm....I bought a 16-50 in 2014 on the understanding that it had been redesigned, and SDM issues were a thing of the past. I've never had an issue with it....

Are people now suggesting that the 'modern' copies of this lens are prone to failure as well? Have people reported recent serial numbers with failures? I'm very fond of this lens, and don't want to be nervous about an impending failure.

The SDM lenses I had were working all flawlessly. I think this is part of the past, but it doesn't make them focussing faster.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Well I've Decided...no more	john5100	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	06-29-2013 09:54 AM
Well i've waited long enough!!!	rollin	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	17	03-13-2011 07:50 PM
Well, I've made the switch.....	maxwell1295	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	33	09-19-2009 12:00 AM

09-22-2016, 04:33 PM	#76
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	Originally posted by caliscouser The problem is the cat's been out of the bag for a long time now. It is already a PR disaster. Are they quietly helping customers as a matter of policy now? Probably not. They could have put this all to bed long ago quite easily. If the problem is largely solved as of a quiet 2012 re-design then for any newly purchased lenses warranty the SDM for life or 6 years (choose a number). Put the price up on the lens to cover any additional warranty costs if needed. Moving forward the problem is then gone. For those already purchased lenses that experience a failure at least subsidize the repair cost. A nominal cost say $50 (rather than the $200+ or whatever it is now), throw in a free calibration and cleaning at the same time. Problem mitigated for a modest financial hit. Not bagging on Pentax / Ricoh for the fun of it here. I love the company and products (I've owned 7 K bodies, 2 Q's and film bodies). I know they have been financially challenged as a company, but it's the apparent ineptitude that's frustrating at times. Ok, rant over. I'm happy Steve's situation has been speedily resolved and hope this is sign of better things to come. The amount of customer good will that would have been generated would have been large and long lasting. However, the opposite in the form of the lingering death, the fear of the SDM fiasco that just keeps giving - and to some degree just poisons the brand. I just do not understand it at all.

09-23-2016, 06:39 PM	#77
Poit Banned Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Canberra, Australia Posts: 423	Hmmmm....I bought a 16-50 in 2014 on the understanding that it had been redesigned, and SDM issues were a thing of the past. I've never had an issue with it.... Are people now suggesting that the 'modern' copies of this lens are prone to failure as well? Have people reported recent serial numbers with failures? I'm very fond of this lens, and don't want to be nervous about an impending failure.

09-24-2016, 02:11 AM	#78
sarge Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2016 Location: Illinois Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 460	Glad to hear Ricoh/Pentax made it right for you. It was stories like these, (multiple failures of SDM motors), that caused me to get a Sigma 17-50 2.8 when it was time for me to get a fast normal zoom. The way this issue was handled must have cost Pentax some money and perhaps users.

09-24-2016, 08:16 AM	#79
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by Poit Hmmmm....I bought a 16-50 in 2014 on the understanding that it had been redesigned, and SDM issues were a thing of the past. I've never had an issue with it.... Are people now suggesting that the 'modern' copies of this lens are prone to failure as well? Have people reported recent serial numbers with failures? I'm very fond of this lens, and don't want to be nervous about an impending failure. The SDM lenses I had were working all flawlessly. I think this is part of the past, but it doesn't make them focussing faster.