[séamuis]

The serial number thread on the 16-50 still seems pretty active, with quite a few posts of bad lenses even within the last few weeks. If anything will hurt the Pentax brand, it is that lens rather than the limiteds.

that doesn't prove that there is still a QC issue. some of the lenses that did get out with QC issues are still circulating. also pixel peepers who blame everything on equipment who think something is "wrong" with their lens will post there as well.

[nulla]

that doesn't prove that there is still a QC issue. some of the lenses that did get out with QC issues are still circulating. also pixel peepers who blame everything on equipment who think something is "wrong" with their lens will post there as well.

I agree with you...

and the real number of bad copies being reported on this site has dropped dramaticly if you look at the last 3 pages of the thread.

And if you have this lens like I do you will love it.. stellar lens.

Sorry to get off the real topic of this thread... the FA 31 limited.


Neil

[GeneV]

that doesn't prove that there is still a QC issue. some of the lenses that did get out with QC issues are still circulating. also pixel peepers who blame everything on equipment who think something is "wrong" with their lens will post there as well.

I don't know whether there is or there isn't still a QC issue at the factory today, as we speak. That was not my point, really. It is that the reputation of Pentax has been hurt by this lens. Some of those stories on the serial number thread from the last few weeks are way beyond pixel peeping and include in one case receiving a physically damaged lens as a replacement from Pentax. Perhaps Pentax should do a recall. As long as these "bad" lenses circulate, the problem with the reputation continues.

Personally, I have wanted the DA* 16-50 since it appeared, and I keep looking for the reports to die so I could jump in, but there are still too many people on these boards (and elsewhere), including those who buy based upon recommendations here, who report back problems.

What both the 16-50 and the 31mm ltd share is that they are premium lenses at premium prices. The manufacturer can't afford many duds when commanding these prices.

[séamuis]

I don't know whether there is or there isn't still a QC issue at the factory today, as we speak. That was not my point, really. It is that the reputation of Pentax has been hurt by this lens. Some of those stories on the serial number thread from the last few weeks are way beyond pixel peeping and include in one case receiving a physically damaged lens as a replacement from Pentax. Perhaps Pentax should do a recall. As long as these "bad" lenses circulate, the problem with the reputation continues.

Personally, I have wanted the DA* 16-50 since it appeared, and I keep looking for the reports to die so I could jump in, but there are still too many people on these boards (and elsewhere), including those who buy based upon recommendations here, who report back problems.

What both the 16-50 and the 31mm ltd share is that they are premium lenses at premium prices. The manufacturer can't afford many duds when commanding these prices.

in case you weren't aware, all the manufacturers have problems with QC. this hurts Pentax no more than anyone else, except maybe for the fact that Pentax (Hoya) might not be able to afford it the way say canon and nikon can.

I have heard of many problems with canon L lenses and nikon ED VR lenses.

besides this, nobody knows for sure if all of these are actual problems with the lens or ignorance by the user. as it would seem the case with the newest 31mm limited thread. yea they report problems alright, and then everyone assumes its the hardware. no proof that it always is. issue a recall? why would they do that? take a huge hit to issue an unneeded recall for a lens that hasn't had [any evidence of] an actual tangible QC problem in what, well over a year? that's a bit ridiculous.

[GeneV]

yea they report problems alright, and then everyone assumes its the hardware. no proof that it always is. issue a recall? why would they do that? take a huge hit to issue an unneeded recall for a lens that hasn't had [any evidence of] an actual tangible QC problem in what, well over a year? that's a bit ridiculous.

262 of the 361 total posts (72%) in the sticky thread on serial numbers have been on or after July 8, 2008, as well as posts in countless other threads. Some posts are of good copies, but many are not. Perhaps the sponsors of this board should just shut down that sticky thread and stop this libel, if most of these folks are wrong.

Actually, I've seriously wondered about the harm versus good of that thread. It is difficult to know how other lenses (including some from other companies) would fare if all who purchased them were invited to give the serial number and state good or bad.

[nulla]

262 of the 361 total posts (72%) in the sticky thread on serial numbers have been on or after July 8, 2008, as well as posts in countless other threads. Some posts are of good copies, but many are not. Perhaps the sponsors of this board should just shut down that sticky thread and stop this libel, if most of these folks are wrong.

Actually, I've seriously wondered about the harm versus good of that thread. It is difficult to know how other lenses (including some from other companies) would fare if all who purchased them were invited to give the serial number and state good or bad.

As stated it has slowed down

the thread commenced in April 08

going by your figures that means close to one hundered reports in the first 3 months. if the rate was the same and my rough calculations correct you could expect another 400 thereafter.

If it was as bad a product you would expect that the lens was removed from sale.. but no its sales have continued and I again state its a stellar lens


*****Actually I need to edit my comments regarding figures altogether after visiting the the thread in question... what you have quoted are total number of posts... some of those posts in the thread are actually good copies... some are comments. I cannot be bothered counting bad copies posted but will stand by what I have said in that the reports of them have slowed down.

If you do bother to do a count you might also want to do a site search on how many complaints there are for the FA31?

People do come and complain of lens faults... not just the DA* and not only Pentax





Neil

[GeneV]

As stated it has slowed down

the thread commenced in April 08

going by your figures that means close to one hundered reports in the first 3 months. if the rate was the same and my rough calculations correct you could expect another 400 thereafter.

If it was as bad a product you would expect that the lens was removed from sale.. but no its sales have continued and I again state its a stellar lens


*****Actually I need to edit my comments regarding figures altogether after visiting the the thread in question... what you have quoted are total number of posts... some of those posts in the thread are actually good copies... some are comments. I cannot be bothered counting bad copies posted but will stand by what I have said in that the reports of them have slowed down.

If you do bother to do a count you might also want to do a site search on how many complaints there are for the FA31?

People do come and complain of lens faults... not just the DA* and not only Pentax


Neil

Neill, those aren't "my" figures, just the raw numbers of posts, and I clearly stated that some were noting good copies and some bad. The numbers were quoted only in response to the statement by another poster that there was no evidence at all of a problem in the last year. Heck, as you pointed out, the entire thread is only about a year old.

I did not say that the lens is bad. I've said over and over that I don't know. My point is just that, rightly or wrongly, its reputation has hurt the Pentax reputation. I say that as a lifelong Pentax fan who returned to this forum and was shocked to see that the first thread on lenses is about how many bad (and good) copies existed of a premium lens. I can't imagine how many others have felt the same way. If a semi-official GM site began with a list of how many bad Corvettes are out there, that would not help its reputation. And, yes, if there were (the need for) a sticky thread for bad FA31mm, or any other lense, it would not be helpful, either.

[creampuff]

Well let me relate an actual incident about QC.
It relates to the renowned Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 Apo Lanthars. I ordered one awhile back from my local Voigtlander rep (a friend of mine) here in Singapore and received it 2 weeks later. Perfect in every way and I could choose from one of 3 copies available. Two days later I had to report to the rep that the aperture blades could not open wider than f/3.5. Try as I might, the aperture blades couldn't open fully. Apparently there was an assembly fault and Cosina in Japan immediately sent over replacement copies for a 1 to 1 exchange because the problem also showed up on the other earlier copies.

Conclusion: made in Japan doesn't mean QC problems don't exist.

[séamuis]

Conclusion: made in Japan doesn't mean QC problems don't exist.

neither does Made In Germany. I think most of us have seen or heard about the problems with K mount Zeiss Z series lenses a while back. and these are top quality.

[K-9]

neither does Made In Germany. I think most of us have seen or heard about the problems with K mount Zeiss Z series lenses a while back. and these are top quality.

No, I didn't! Enlighten me, as I almost bought one the other day.

As far as the Pentax lenses, didn't Hoya close the Japan factory after the buyout and now all items are being made elsewhere? You have to figure it was a way to cut costs for Hoya, or else why do it? Why close a factory that already is set up and has been churning out the same lenses for years. It had to be a cost effective move, so like it or not, and made with the same materials or not, the new factories, whether they be Vietnam or other countries, most likely do not have the same money and effort going into their manufacture. The end result and parts are the same, but most likely QC and longevity of the assembly may come into question.

[séamuis]

No, I didn't! Enlighten me, as I almost bought one the other day.

As far as the Pentax lenses, didn't Hoya close the Japan factory after the buyout and now all items are being made elsewhere? You have to figure it was a way to cut costs for Hoya, or else why do it? Why close a factory that already is set up and has been churning out the same lenses for years. It had to be a cost effective move, so like it or not, and made with the same materials or not, the new factories, whether they be Vietnam or other countries, most likely do not have the same money and effort going into their manufacture. The end result and parts are the same, but most likely QC and longevity of the assembly may come into question.

one of our forum members had one or maybe two different Z series kenses, that if I remember correctly had de-centered elements, and had a really rough time getting them fixed/exchanged, as it was right after the Z series for K mount was released.

[nulla]

Neill, those aren't "my" figures, just the raw numbers of posts, and I clearly stated that some were noting good copies and some bad. The numbers were quoted only in response to the statement by another poster that there was no evidence at all of a problem in the last year. Heck, as you pointed out, the entire thread is only about a year old.

I did not say that the lens is bad. I've said over and over that I don't know. My point is just that, rightly or wrongly, its reputation has hurt the Pentax reputation. I say that as a lifelong Pentax fan who returned to this forum and was shocked to see that the first thread on lenses is about how many bad (and good) copies existed of a premium lens. I can't imagine how many others have felt the same way. If a semi-official GM site began with a list of how many bad Corvettes are out there, that would not help its reputation. And, yes, if there were (the need for) a sticky thread for bad FA31mm, or any other lense, it would not be helpful, either.

fair enough mate


cheers


Neil

[blind-bat]

No, I didn't! Enlighten me, as I almost bought one the other day.

As far as the Pentax lenses, didn't Hoya close the Japan factory after the buyout and now all items are being made elsewhere? You have to figure it was a way to cut costs for Hoya, or else why do it? Why close a factory that already is set up and has been churning out the same lenses for years. It had to be a cost effective move, so like it or not, and made with the same materials or not, the new factories, whether they be Vietnam or other countries, most likely do not have the same money and effort going into their manufacture. The end result and parts are the same, but most likely QC and longevity of the assembly may come into question.

Contradictory. In theory, sending manufacturing/assembly to a country where the average wage is $40 USD/month enables Hoya to spend more effort (time) in manufacturing the product. As far as QA, I know a company that cuts diamonds in Vietnam & the product is top notch. The Vietnamese are extremely hard working and in general are very good at learning the skill sets required to assemble or manufacture product well. Also, companies that set up operations like this will Q&A with someone who has done this for years by relocating them from an existing operation. I believe the bad lenses in the case of the new 31mms are just a batch that got through.

[TheTenaciousOne]

While i can sort of justify why people are sticking up for Vietnamese made products the truth is the QC of these products are no-where near as strict as those of some countries such as Japan. You can say that the workers there would be trained and skilled it would not be to the same degree or level as other countries. Working in an engineering field it is obvious that some things are not made to the same level as others and for high precision optics such as lenses the smallest details and make the biggest differences.
Personally i would gladly pay an extra 10-20% for a lens which i can be confident in performing as it should.
The occasional defect may come through but it the degree which it is defected and the number of them that constitute Quality control.

[séamuis]

The occasional defect may come through but it the degree which it is defected and the number of them that constitute Quality control.

which has absolutely nothing to do with the human workers of any specific nation, but the quality of the quality control process.