[krazny]

Does the focus confirm hexagon in your viewfinder show any activity?

Typically when I turn on the camera and push the focus button the hexagon is dead at first and then after some focusing I notice that it may start to blink erratically and then voila!

YMMV of course.

[Apet-Sure]

Does the focus confirm hexagon in your viewfinder show any activity?

It just blinks erratically as long as I hold the focus button down. No response from the lens. I cut my teeth on manual focus lenses, so I really don't mind not having AF on the 60-250. When it was working, the SDM wasn't as fast as my screw drive lenses anyway.

[clickclick]

What's keeping Pentax from changing all of these to DC or PLM going forward? How hard would it be for them to offer a retro-fit?

I think part of the problem is the weight and travel of some of the optical groups in these lenses is beyond the capabilities of the PLM type motors. If you look at the 60-250, there are some big chunks of glass with a fair amount of distance to travel. I think it's more than adapting a new motor, but a redesign of the optics too. Luckily, we are seeing Pentax target some key lenses for this type of upgrade, and the DA* 16-50 is one of them.

[UncleVanya]

I feel like the 16-50 is the one you really hear about. I also have the 50-135, which I purchased at the same time, and a 60-250 I picked up used, so some age on that, and then the 20-40 Limited, and it's only been the 16-50 that's given me fits. I don't think I've ever heard of the 20-40 having issues either.

50-135 is about as common from the data I have. (based on customers lenses only) and the 60-250 is the least common (based on requests).


The 17-70 was also a problem early in the lifecycle of that lens. The 55 is one that you hear about too but not frequently.

[clickclick]

50-135 is about as common from the data I have. (based on customers lenses only) and the 60-250 is the least common (based on requests).


The 17-70 was also a problem early in the lifecycle of that lens. The 55 is one that you hear about too but not frequently.

I've been lucky with my 50-135, and it's actually seen very little use compared to my 16-50. The 60-250 I bought used was so messed up optically (had been dropped and was decentered), that I had to send it to Precision, who in turn sent it to Pentax in Japan. Even though the SDM was working, when it came back from Pentax, it was listed as having been replaced. In fact, the repair sheet from Pentax made it look like it was basically rebuilt from scratch. The lens is great now. Fingers crossed.

[UncleVanya]

I've been lucky with my 50-135, and it's actually seen very little use compared to my 16-50. The 60-250 I bought used was so messed up optically (had been dropped and was decentered), that I had to send it to Precision, who in turn sent it to Pentax in Japan. Even though the SDM was working, when it came back from Pentax, it was listed as having been replaced. In fact, the repair sheet from Pentax made it look like it was basically rebuilt from scratch. The lens is great now. Fingers crossed.

I own all three of those lenses. The 60-250 is lovely as is the 50-135. I don’t love the 16-50 as much but I think that’s not the lenses fault. I owned the da 15 before the 16-50 and the flare handling of the da 15 spoiled me.

It's great that you managed to get your lens mostly working again. I'm happy for you.

But I have to say that I would be a bit hesitant to spend money on lenses equipped with SDM focusing systems in future after reading this, and many others, threads about malfunctioning SDM motors. Is it really such a widespread problem?

Never mind, it was not a permanent solution, the lens' AF system is now dead, apparently. I agree about spending money on SDM lenses. Since this lens was repaired by Precision as Ricoh's agent, and they apparently replaced a defective part with another, it confirms my earlier decision never to trust Ricoh at all about anything ever again - they're on my "do not buy" list.

[UncleVanya]

Never mind, it was not a permanent solution, the lens' AF system is now dead, apparently. I agree about spending money on SDM lenses. Since this lens was repaired by Precision as Ricoh's agent, and they apparently replaced a defective part with another, it confirms my earlier decision never to trust Ricoh at all about anything ever again - they're on my "do not buy" list.

I think that's harsh and unfair. I know of multiple stories of other brands having problems that required repair for the same problem more than once. As for defective part with defective part - I doubt it. I have a theory about SDM and it involves the fact that the same lenses often have multiple failures. My guess is that something inside the lens is not at the same tolerance as the lenses that never have a failure. I don't know what it is but my assumption is that it adds friction/drag and just wears the little motors out.

This theory isn't testable and I have no clue if I'm right.

[Rondec]

I think that's harsh and unfair. I know of multiple stories of other brands having problems that required repair for the same problem more than once. As for defective part with defective part - I doubt it. I have a theory about SDM and it involves the fact that the same lenses often have multiple failures. My guess is that something inside the lens is not at the same tolerance as the lenses that never have a failure. I don't know what it is but my assumption is that it adds friction/drag and just wears the little motors out.

This theory isn't testable and I have no clue if I'm right.

I think that's right. It's a lot like divorce statistics. 50 percent of marriages end in divorce, but people who are only married once count only once. People who are married multiple times skew the numbers. It really does seem as though the dual drive lenses had more issues (primarily the 16-50 and 50-135) and among those, there were certain copies that had multiple issues and had to have SDM repaired multiple times. It is a small motor and if there is too much resistance or something else, maybe it just burns out. All Pentax does is replace the motor, so that extra strain is still there to cause problems down the road again.

I think that's harsh and unfair. I know of multiple stories of other brands having problems that required repair for the same problem more than once. As for defective part with defective part - I doubt it. I have a theory about SDM and it involves the fact that the same lenses often have multiple failures. My guess is that something inside the lens is not at the same tolerance as the lenses that never have a failure. I don't know what it is but my assumption is that it adds friction/drag and just wears the little motors out.

This theory isn't testable and I have no clue if I'm right.

That's the most plausible hypothesis I've seen, but I reckon we'll never know. But my decision isn't solely based on that particular failure. There's also the repeated incidents of refusal to honor warranties based on false claims of "probable impact damage", and the fact that it took me two years (and serious threats of legal action) to get them to deliver a working copy of the 560mm. I don't want to do business with a company whose attitude toward customer service is, "Make me."

When I pay for a product, it is not my intention thereby to buy into a wrestling match with the manufacturer, and that's all I've ever gotten from Ricoh, with one exception. (They did fix the K-1 I'd bought that had a manufactured-in problem right quick and without any argument, but that's an isolated case.)

I vote with my dollars, and I don't buy things from people who rip me off repeatedly. Once, I can forgive and assume "probable user error", but two or more looks to me like a pattern of intentional misconduct.

[UncleVanya]

That's the most plausible hypothesis I've seen, but I reckon we'll never know. But my decision isn't solely based on that particular failure. There's also the repeated incidents of refusal to honor warranties based on false claims of "probable impact damage", and the fact that it took me two years (and serious threats of legal action) to get them to deliver a working copy of the 560mm. I don't want to do business with a company whose attitude toward customer service is, "Make me."

When I pay for a product, it is not my intention thereby to buy into a wrestling match with the manufacturer, and that's all I've ever gotten from Ricoh, with one exception. (They did fix the K-1 I'd bought that had a manufactured-in problem right quick and without any argument, but that's an isolated case.)

I vote with my dollars, and I don't buy things from people who rip me off repeatedly. Once, I can forgive and assume "probable user error", but two or more looks to me like a pattern of intentional misconduct.

This is a situation where the grass appears greener only when you haven’t dug into the soil.

Keep in mind Ricoh isn’t precision and the situation could drastically change with enough complaints. Also understand that statistics are hard to come by but the few I’ve seen suggest the same level of dissatisfaction in the other brands. The only certainty is that pro level support from Nikon, Canon etc is a world apart from consumer level support.

---------- Post added 07-14-21 at 12:44 PM ----------

I think that's right. It's a lot like divorce statistics. 50 percent of marriages end in divorce, but people who are only married once count only once. People who are married multiple times skew the numbers.

It really does seem as though the dual drive lenses had more issues (primarily the 16-50 and 50-135) and among those, there were certain copies that had multiple issues and had to have SDM repaired multiple times. It is a small motor and if there is too much resistance or something else, maybe it just burns out. All Pentax does is replace the motor, so that extra strain is still there to cause problems down the road again.

The 17-70 also had a high failure rate.

I never thought about the statistics of marriage that way. Great point.

Update on the 55mm SDM lens - it happens that I've got an older 1.7x TC that was also sold as a "manual focus lens adapter" - get the lens "tuned in" pretty well by eyeball and manual focus, then hit the AF button and the TC does some "fine tuning". Also get macro capability out of that combination. And, since I wouldn't be using a 55mm lens for birds in flight or sporting events, the time it takes to execute the preliminary manually focus isn't a problem.

[krazny]

Two week update.

It is still alive. Was rather consistent while left on the camera.

Needed some waking up after being left of the lens for 2 and 3 days. After the second "rest" for which was three days I needed more time to wake it up than ever before.

However it works put I've come to realize that I do prefer the screw drive noise over the SDM silence.

[TwoUptons]

I think that's right. It's a lot like divorce statistics. 50 percent of marriages end in divorce, but people who are only married once count only once. People who are married multiple times skew the numbers. It really does seem as though the dual drive lenses had more issues (primarily the 16-50 and 50-135) and among those, there were certain copies that had multiple issues and had to have SDM repaired multiple times. It is a small motor and if there is too much resistance or something else, maybe it just burns out. All Pentax does is replace the motor, so that extra strain is still there to cause problems down the road again.

Guy I used to work for had been married six times, twice to the same woman.

He tried to talk me out of marriage. I told him that no matter how many times he had done it, he had obviously missed the point completely…

But he skewed statistics in many other ways, too…

I guess it would take something with frequent connection to the internet and the ability to “call home” to get good reliability numbers, and even then, how do you know if a widget is broken or just not being used? I wonder if Sony cameras and lenses do that? Seems like a Sony thing to do since they have all that phone experience…

-Eric