Pentax D FA* 70-200MM observations and concerns

Kunzite · 01-17-2017, 02:54 PM

Not you - I was responding to Driline, my apologies for not being clear about it. I'm fuming when thinking what you had to go through.

Well - perhaps the first lens had a QC problem; but giving the second and third, I don't trust that seller. Lack of even some packaging is ultimately a sign of disrespect toward the customer, then there's the question of receiving distressed/returned merchandise.

Last edited by Kunzite; 01-17-2017 at 03:00 PM.

beholder3 · 01-17-2017, 03:00 PM

Unbelievable what Amazon is doing to their customers. Especially the blatant lie about better packaging next time.

Return, refund and buy at a more quality oriented shop.

Driline · 01-17-2017, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Kunzite

So you're downplaying the real issue just to push blame on Ricoh Imaging...

Yep. Pretty much. All were shipped exactly alike. Why did the last one work and not the first two.

**UncleVanya** · 01-17-2017, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Driline

Yep. Pretty much. All were shipped exactly alike. Why did the last one work and not the first two.

To play devil's advocate. The first unit was obviously opened and likely returned. We have no idea what happened to it. The second MAY have been opened it just wasn't obvious. The third could also be opened and returned unmolested. Additionally shipping in the manner shown has potential to damage the lens - and that's just it - potential. Maybe the first replacement (2nd lens overall) was dropped a lot or abused a lot on the way and the third wasn't. We don't know. We do know that the packing was substandard and the first box appears to have been opened. That's all we know. We can't really draw conclusions about Ricoh or Amazon but we can suppose. The evidence at this point seems more damaging to Amazon.

randee · 01-17-2017, 06:24 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Kunzite

Not you - I was responding to Driline, my apologies for not being clear about it. I'm fuming when thinking what you had to go through.

Well - perhaps the first lens had a QC problem; but giving the second and third, I don't trust that seller. Lack of even some packaging is ultimately a sign of disrespect toward the customer, then there's the question of receiving distressed/returned merchandise.

Thanks Kunzite, sorry I misunderstood.

I am really not too upset about the situation. I am just a little confused about it all.
Ya, Amazon definitely dropped the ball on the shipping, however I still can't say for certain that it was the cause.

I actually sell merchandise on Amazon, as a 3rd party seller. I am sure that their system has some kind of flag to properly package those items, and it wasn't being selected. They did come from different warehouses. I have had some weird issues with their product catalog.

I have bought most of my gear from B&H and Adorama, with few issues. Although, I will admit, I am probably looking at this lens with a magnifying glass due to it's price tag and importance.

Just took some pictures with the 3rd copy I got and it did have a few AF issues in lighting I wouldn't expect it to have problems with, but overall it is working fine. The AF sound thing doesn't seem to be as noticeable to me as it did yesterday. So I think I am keeping this one.

Wish I had a friend who worked in the QA lab at Pentax/Ricoh I could call on to give me a hand.

Thanks again Kunzite for your input, it's appreciated.

---------- Post added 01-18-2017 at 09:28 AM ----------

Originally posted by beholder3

Unbelievable what Amazon is doing to their customers. Especially the blatant lie about better packaging next time.

Return, refund and buy at a more quality oriented shop.

I probably should as a matter of principle, but it does seem to be functioning properly and it's here in my hands. I am thinking I will go with it, but I will keep that in mind in the future. Just imagine if I had an event I need to shoot, this thing has set me back weeks. Luckily I rarely see daylight with work and being the dead of winter.

Thanks for the input!

---------- Post added 01-18-2017 at 09:43 AM ----------

Originally posted by Driline

Yep. Pretty much. All were shipped exactly alike. Why did the last one work and not the first two.

I really do have no idea what's up. How much is in my head and what really the problems are.
I started to think that there might be a slight copy variance that would cause some lenses to focus inconsistency with the K3. The K1's improved AF might be able to 'see past that variance' and function with better accuracy and less inconsistency.

It could just be shipping and even though the boxes looked rough, 1 might have taken some falls and the other just skidded around. Who knows...

Another thought I had, which probably wouldn't be a popular thought. Most production facilities would have strict QA and testing to tight tolerances as they begin producing a product. Then as they produce more and more without issues, they lessen the testing and relax the tolerances to save money. I hope that's not the case, and I doubt it.

I <3 PENTAX

---------- Post added 01-18-2017 at 10:00 AM ----------

Originally posted by UncleVanya

To play devil's advocate. The first unit was obviously opened and likely returned. We have no idea what happened to it. The second MAY have been opened it just wasn't obvious. The third could also be opened and returned unmolested. Additionally shipping in the manner shown has potential to damage the lens - and that's just it - potential. Maybe the first replacement (2nd lens overall) was dropped a lot or abused a lot on the way and the third wasn't. We don't know. We do know that the packing was substandard and the first box appears to have been opened. That's all we know. We can't really draw conclusions about Ricoh or Amazon but we can suppose. The evidence at this point seems more damaging to Amazon.

Wow, that's an excellent summation UncleVanya!
We don't know much. Testing wasn't really definite either.

Thanks for that!

Driline · 01-17-2017, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Not you - I was responding to Driline, my apologies for not being clear about it. I'm fuming when thinking what you had to go through.

Well - perhaps the first lens had a QC problem; but giving the second and third, I don't trust that seller. Lack of even some packaging is ultimately a sign of disrespect toward the customer, then there's the question of receiving distressed/returned merchandise.

I accept your apology.

Kunzite · 01-18-2017, 12:45 AM

That's... interesting, but I'll leave it there.

Driline · 01-18-2017, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Kunzite

That's... interesting, but I'll leave it there.

LOL Psych!

**jatrax** · 01-20-2017, 05:14 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by UncleVanya

We do know that the packing was substandard and the first box appears to have been opened.

I buy a fair amount of stuff through Amazon, both personally and for work and in all cases their packaging is top notch. Usually overkill and a standard to be met by others. I have had $10 items shipped in bubble wrap and a stout outer box that likely cost a third the cost of the item. I am absolutely stunned that they would ship those lenses in the Ricoh box without an outer. I would complain loudly if that happened to me, if for no reason other than the damage to the box reduces the resale value. What on earth were they thinking?

randee · 01-21-2017, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by jatrax

I buy a fair amount of stuff through Amazon, both personally and for work and in all cases their packaging is top notch. Usually overkill and a standard to be met by others. I have had $10 items shipped in bubble wrap and a stout outer box that likely cost a third the cost of the item. I am absolutely stunned that they would ship those lenses in the Ricoh box without an outer. I would complain loudly if that happened to me, if for no reason other than the damage to the box reduces the resale value. What on earth were they thinking?

Hi Jatrax,

Thanks for the response!

I can't think of a situation where Amazon has ever shipped me anything in it's OEM box. I wonder if the special shipping instructions got messed up on this item. It should have been shipped with extra care and ended up getting shipped with no care. After I read your response, I went to Amazon and complained. They gave me a discount which I am happy to accept as the lens seems to be functioning properly on my K3.

Also through the input of other forum members and other sites and reviews, it seems some of the issues I have with this lens are common. Walked around for a bit today in the backyard with the lens. Worked fine. Going to have to learn to adjust the AF microadjust on the fly or find a happy medium. Other than that worked great. Still a bit heavy, but I am getting used to it.

Thanks again Jatrax for convincing me to make a complaint, I didn't think they would offer a discount, happy they did and I can be done with this purchasing process! Now the question isn't whether to send it back or not, it's how can I get the best images from it? So thanks for that!

Thanks for everyone who chimed in and helped, it is really appreciated.

a crop of a shot of the cat that hangs around our house because we feed it...

**sbh** · 01-21-2017, 04:36 PM

I'd still test it on a K-1 if you have the opportunity. One day maybe you want to use it on FF or sell it or so. Flaws can be more obvious further out towards the edges (decentering).

randee · 01-21-2017, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by sbh

I'd still test it on a K-1 if you have the opportunity. One day maybe you want to use it on FF or sell it or so. Flaws can be more obvious further out towards the edges (decentering).

You are probably right, might call upon my friend with the K-1 and take some pics with him.
I know the K-1 has a lot more sensor size, but I can say the K3's corners look pretty decent.

Sorry for the large images, anyone else who has questions might want to see some samples.

2000pixels of center frame at f2.8

2000pixels of center frame at f2.8 of fence post

I tried to follow the decentring test not sure if I did it right or had it set up properly.
It looked like a circle on the screen.

**sbh** · 02-27-2017, 12:35 PM

Just a quick follow-up to my 70-200. It took some discussion with customer service to get a replacement. The second copy was also decentered. Unfortunately they don't want to send a third copy and offered a refund as the only option.

Driline · 02-27-2017, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by sbh

Just a quick follow-up to my 70-200. It took some discussion with customer service to get a replacement. The second copy was also decentered. Unfortunately they don't want to send a third copy and offered a refund as the only option.

Ahh....another rank and file member of the Pentax lens quality control department. Consider yourself "privledged"

randee · 02-27-2017, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by sbh

Just a quick follow-up to my 70-200. It took some discussion with customer service to get a replacement. The second copy was also decentered. Unfortunately they don't want to send a third copy and offered a refund as the only option.

Hi SBH, thanks for the update.
Refresh my memory, where did you get yours from?
Was your 2nd decentered about the same as the first better/worse?
Were you talking with the retailer or PENTAX repair?

01-17-2017, 03:01 PM	#93
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,695	Originally posted by Kunzite So you're downplaying the real issue just to push blame on Ricoh Imaging... Yep. Pretty much. All were shipped exactly alike. Why did the last one work and not the first two. Last edited by Driline; 01-17-2017 at 03:09 PM.

01-21-2017, 12:53 PM	#100
randee Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Clinton, Iowa - USA Posts: 118 Original Poster	Originally posted by jatrax I buy a fair amount of stuff through Amazon, both personally and for work and in all cases their packaging is top notch. Usually overkill and a standard to be met by others. I have had $10 items shipped in bubble wrap and a stout outer box that likely cost a third the cost of the item. I am absolutely stunned that they would ship those lenses in the Ricoh box without an outer. I would complain loudly if that happened to me, if for no reason other than the damage to the box reduces the resale value. What on earth were they thinking? Hi Jatrax, Thanks for the response! I can't think of a situation where Amazon has ever shipped me anything in it's OEM box. I wonder if the special shipping instructions got messed up on this item. It should have been shipped with extra care and ended up getting shipped with no care. After I read your response, I went to Amazon and complained. They gave me a discount which I am happy to accept as the lens seems to be functioning properly on my K3. Also through the input of other forum members and other sites and reviews, it seems some of the issues I have with this lens are common. Walked around for a bit today in the backyard with the lens. Worked fine. Going to have to learn to adjust the AF microadjust on the fly or find a happy medium. Other than that worked great. Still a bit heavy, but I am getting used to it. Thanks again Jatrax for convincing me to make a complaint, I didn't think they would offer a discount, happy they did and I can be done with this purchasing process! Now the question isn't whether to send it back or not, it's how can I get the best images from it? So thanks for that! Thanks for everyone who chimed in and helped, it is really appreciated. a crop of a shot of the cat that hangs around our house because we feed it... Last edited by randee; 01-21-2017 at 06:01 PM. Reason: my cat pic wasn't showing up.. reupped

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
D FA* 70-200mm F2.8 In-Depth Review (and Tamron 70-200mm comparison)	Adam	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	11-09-2016 06:22 AM
Pentax HD D FA 70-200mm f2.8 - Purchase advice.	randee	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	10-01-2016 03:56 AM
Comparison request: 70-200mm D FA* and 200mm DA*	kislotiq	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	08-11-2016 10:22 PM
Pentax lens sale at B&H, D FA* 70-200mm for $1696 and more	Adam	Pentax Price Watch	5	07-23-2016 12:15 AM
D-FA* 70-200mm and D-FA 150-450mm Announced	PF Staff	Homepage & Official Pentax News	7	02-08-2015 03:10 PM

01-17-2017, 02:54 PM	#91
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Not you - I was responding to Driline, my apologies for not being clear about it. I'm fuming when thinking what you had to go through. Well - perhaps the first lens had a QC problem; but giving the second and third, I don't trust that seller. Lack of even some packaging is ultimately a sign of disrespect toward the customer, then there's the question of receiving distressed/returned merchandise. Last edited by Kunzite; 01-17-2017 at 03:00 PM.

01-17-2017, 03:00 PM	#92
beholder3 Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 3,112	Unbelievable what Amazon is doing to their customers. Especially the blatant lie about better packaging next time. Return, refund and buy at a more quality oriented shop.

01-17-2017, 03:19 PM	#94
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,398	Originally posted by Driline Yep. Pretty much. All were shipped exactly alike. Why did the last one work and not the first two. To play devil's advocate. The first unit was obviously opened and likely returned. We have no idea what happened to it. The second MAY have been opened it just wasn't obvious. The third could also be opened and returned unmolested. Additionally shipping in the manner shown has potential to damage the lens - and that's just it - potential. Maybe the first replacement (2nd lens overall) was dropped a lot or abused a lot on the way and the third wasn't. We don't know. We do know that the packing was substandard and the first box appears to have been opened. That's all we know. We can't really draw conclusions about Ricoh or Amazon but we can suppose. The evidence at this point seems more damaging to Amazon.

01-17-2017, 06:24 PM - 1 Like	#95
randee Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Clinton, Iowa - USA Posts: 118 Original Poster	Originally posted by Kunzite Not you - I was responding to Driline, my apologies for not being clear about it. I'm fuming when thinking what you had to go through. Well - perhaps the first lens had a QC problem; but giving the second and third, I don't trust that seller. Lack of even some packaging is ultimately a sign of disrespect toward the customer, then there's the question of receiving distressed/returned merchandise. Thanks Kunzite, sorry I misunderstood. I am really not too upset about the situation. I am just a little confused about it all. Ya, Amazon definitely dropped the ball on the shipping, however I still can't say for certain that it was the cause. I actually sell merchandise on Amazon, as a 3rd party seller. I am sure that their system has some kind of flag to properly package those items, and it wasn't being selected. They did come from different warehouses. I have had some weird issues with their product catalog. I have bought most of my gear from B&H and Adorama, with few issues. Although, I will admit, I am probably looking at this lens with a magnifying glass due to it's price tag and importance. Just took some pictures with the 3rd copy I got and it did have a few AF issues in lighting I wouldn't expect it to have problems with, but overall it is working fine. The AF sound thing doesn't seem to be as noticeable to me as it did yesterday. So I think I am keeping this one. Wish I had a friend who worked in the QA lab at Pentax/Ricoh I could call on to give me a hand. Thanks again Kunzite for your input, it's appreciated. ---------- Post added 01-18-2017 at 09:28 AM ---------- Originally posted by beholder3 Unbelievable what Amazon is doing to their customers. Especially the blatant lie about better packaging next time. Return, refund and buy at a more quality oriented shop. I probably should as a matter of principle, but it does seem to be functioning properly and it's here in my hands. I am thinking I will go with it, but I will keep that in mind in the future. Just imagine if I had an event I need to shoot, this thing has set me back weeks. Luckily I rarely see daylight with work and being the dead of winter. Thanks for the input! ---------- Post added 01-18-2017 at 09:43 AM ---------- Originally posted by Driline Yep. Pretty much. All were shipped exactly alike. Why did the last one work and not the first two. I really do have no idea what's up. How much is in my head and what really the problems are. I started to think that there might be a slight copy variance that would cause some lenses to focus inconsistency with the K3. The K1's improved AF might be able to 'see past that variance' and function with better accuracy and less inconsistency. It could just be shipping and even though the boxes looked rough, 1 might have taken some falls and the other just skidded around. Who knows... Another thought I had, which probably wouldn't be a popular thought. Most production facilities would have strict QA and testing to tight tolerances as they begin producing a product. Then as they produce more and more without issues, they lessen the testing and relax the tolerances to save money. I hope that's not the case, and I doubt it. I <3 PENTAX ---------- Post added 01-18-2017 at 10:00 AM ---------- Originally posted by UncleVanya To play devil's advocate. The first unit was obviously opened and likely returned. We have no idea what happened to it. The second MAY have been opened it just wasn't obvious. The third could also be opened and returned unmolested. Additionally shipping in the manner shown has potential to damage the lens - and that's just it - potential. Maybe the first replacement (2nd lens overall) was dropped a lot or abused a lot on the way and the third wasn't. We don't know. We do know that the packing was substandard and the first box appears to have been opened. That's all we know. We can't really draw conclusions about Ricoh or Amazon but we can suppose. The evidence at this point seems more damaging to Amazon. Wow, that's an excellent summation UncleVanya! We don't know much. Testing wasn't really definite either. Thanks for that!

01-17-2017, 10:22 PM	#96
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,695	Originally posted by Kunzite Not you - I was responding to Driline, my apologies for not being clear about it. I'm fuming when thinking what you had to go through. Well - perhaps the first lens had a QC problem; but giving the second and third, I don't trust that seller. Lack of even some packaging is ultimately a sign of disrespect toward the customer, then there's the question of receiving distressed/returned merchandise. I accept your apology.

01-18-2017, 12:45 AM	#97
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	That's... interesting, but I'll leave it there.

01-18-2017, 05:55 PM	#98
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,695	Originally posted by Kunzite That's... interesting, but I'll leave it there. LOL Psych!

01-20-2017, 05:14 PM - 2 Likes	#99
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by UncleVanya We do know that the packing was substandard and the first box appears to have been opened. I buy a fair amount of stuff through Amazon, both personally and for work and in all cases their packaging is top notch. Usually overkill and a standard to be met by others. I have had $10 items shipped in bubble wrap and a stout outer box that likely cost a third the cost of the item. I am absolutely stunned that they would ship those lenses in the Ricoh box without an outer. I would complain loudly if that happened to me, if for no reason other than the damage to the box reduces the resale value. What on earth were they thinking?

01-21-2017, 04:36 PM	#101
sbh Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Black Forest, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 849	I'd still test it on a K-1 if you have the opportunity. One day maybe you want to use it on FF or sell it or so. Flaws can be more obvious further out towards the edges (decentering).

01-21-2017, 06:13 PM	#102
randee Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Clinton, Iowa - USA Posts: 118 Original Poster	Originally posted by sbh I'd still test it on a K-1 if you have the opportunity. One day maybe you want to use it on FF or sell it or so. Flaws can be more obvious further out towards the edges (decentering). You are probably right, might call upon my friend with the K-1 and take some pics with him. I know the K-1 has a lot more sensor size, but I can say the K3's corners look pretty decent. Sorry for the large images, anyone else who has questions might want to see some samples. 2000pixels of center frame at f2.8 2000pixels of center frame at f2.8 of fence post I tried to follow the decentring test not sure if I did it right or had it set up properly. It looked like a circle on the screen.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-27-2017, 12:35 PM	#103
sbh Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Black Forest, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 849	Just a quick follow-up to my 70-200. It took some discussion with customer service to get a replacement. The second copy was also decentered. Unfortunately they don't want to send a third copy and offered a refund as the only option.

02-27-2017, 01:11 PM	#104
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,695	Originally posted by sbh Just a quick follow-up to my 70-200. It took some discussion with customer service to get a replacement. The second copy was also decentered. Unfortunately they don't want to send a third copy and offered a refund as the only option. Ahh....another rank and file member of the Pentax lens quality control department. Consider yourself "privledged"

02-27-2017, 01:13 PM	#105
randee Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Clinton, Iowa - USA Posts: 118 Original Poster	Originally posted by sbh Just a quick follow-up to my 70-200. It took some discussion with customer service to get a replacement. The second copy was also decentered. Unfortunately they don't want to send a third copy and offered a refund as the only option. Hi SBH, thanks for the update. Refresh my memory, where did you get yours from? Was your 2nd decentered about the same as the first better/worse? Were you talking with the retailer or PENTAX repair?