[stevebrot]

Ha ha... A lens rental company "the guys who should know" and "They dont deal in Pentax"! Well that speaks volumes on so many levels!

Clever Gus...did you read the article?

Steve

I did and thank you for the link... It is a good article that explains the difference between rental "shock test" and our lenses which we baby beyond belief. It is a good indicator of failure rates though.

Not sure how it applies to this 'shotgun' discussion we are having, but it is definitely some more pellets for the next re-load. And "clever" or not... having no pentax lenses is telling to me. My guess is, the Pentax Da 50 135 would be on the same list as that tamron 70-200 (we dont stock it anymore because we cant afford too) Just a guess

[infosyn]

But that the 50-135 should suffer "a bad reputation" sounds very strange. From waht I have read (and seen in images) in this forum, the contrary is true, the 50-135 stands in highest regards, due to its prime-like performance.

Agreed, the optical quality is superb. I doubt anyone would debate that. And the Pentax-specific features such as Quick-Shift are very nice.

The achilles heel is the SDM, compounded with an obnoxious Catch-22: when the SDM goes on the fritz even temporarily, there is no way to use the lens's old-fashioned but quite reliable screw-drive mechanism to Auto-Focus, even though it's right there in the lens! (From what I read here, anyway.) And then Pentax seems to take a couple months to return the lens after repair, which is another dent in the armor.

My point, however, is that Pentax could easily and cheaply implement several responses to the few problems, and they have NOT done so. This is what concerns me, that they are so out of touch with their reputation, whether or not the reputation is deserved.

NO manufacturer will publish data on faults of its products. The only industry that has a hard time to safeguard these data is the car industry with its regular recalls.

Right, no manufacturer wants to admit they're less than perfect. That's exactly what I was trying to say. (Another exception to the rule is the General Aviation industry, where the FAA not only reports the problems but actually requires owners to immediately fix the problems, at their own expense!)

[Rondec]

I think the clear thing from the lens rental post was just a general iteration that electronics break down and the more heavily they are used the more often they break down. Sure, these are non Pentax lenses, but many of the lenses on the list are high end "well built" lenses and they still break down. I continue to wonder how Pentax's implementation of SDM compares to Canon and Nikon's in lens motors. I still have no idea, but it certainly looks like these are prone to breaking down. Of course, the Tamron 70-200 that tops the list doesn't have an in lens motor at all...

Actually Rondec... I believe you are mistaken on the Tamron 70--200mm lens. It does not have motor for Pentax mount, but it definitely does for the Nikon version.

[Rondec]

Sorry, I didn't realize. I guess plus one for Pentax there -- probably a more durable lens for the lacking lens motor...

[Just1MoreDave]

...Not sure how it applies to this 'shotgun' discussion we are having, but it is definitely some more pellets for the next re-load. And "clever" or not... having no pentax lenses is telling to me. My guess is, the Pentax Da 50 135 would be on the same list as that tamron 70-200 (we dont stock it anymore because we cant afford too) Just a guess

I'm not actively looking for them, but you know, I haven't seen anyone offer broken lenses for sale. Shouldn't there be ads? Like say, "DA* 16-50/2.8 and DA*50-135/2.8, SDM failed, $150 for one or $250 both". Hey, they'd AF on my camera.

[Class A]

They don't deal in Pentax, ...

Brands they deal with are:
Canon, Nikon, Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, Olympus, Zeiss, Leica, Schneider, Voigtlander, and Sony.
And no Pentax, ouch.

The numbers really don't say that much except that lenses fail and that this is probably helped by shipping them around a lot and having them treated by users who don't own them. The numbers would be relevant for the SDM discussion, if they included Pentax SDM lenses.

Too bad that SDM capable cameras do not allow to revert to screw-driven operation. That wouldn't be hard to enable and would take away at least some of the heat.

[stevebrot]

Brands they deal with are:
Canon, Nikon, Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, Olympus, Zeiss, Leica, Schneider, Voigtlander, and Sony.
And no Pentax, ouch.

The numbers really don't say that much except that lenses fail and that this is probably helped by shipping them around a lot and having them treated by users who don't own them. The numbers would be relevant for the SDM discussion, if they included Pentax SDM lenses.

Too bad that SDM capable cameras do not allow to revert to screw-driven operation. That wouldn't be hard to enable and would take away at least some of the heat.

In the article, they indicate that some lenses were bad new in the box. There is probably something to the abuse angle, but the rental place was quick to qualify their claims by indicating that the data does not include lenses that had obvious traumatic damage.

Personally, a high defect rate does not particularly surprise me. I don't like it, but it is consistent with the general quality level of technology products (computers, monitors, TVs, etc.). It is easier and cheaper to include the end consumer in the QA loop.

Steve

[monochrome]

In the article, they indicate that some lenses were bad new in the box. There is probably something to the abuse angle, but the rental place was quick to qualify their claims by indicating that the data does not include lenses that had obvious traumatic damage.

Personally, a high defect rate does not particularly surprise me. I don't like it, but it is consistent with the general quality level of technology products (computers, monitors, TVs, etc.). It is easier and cheaper to include the end consumer in the QA loop.

Steve

Not that I include Pentax in this rant, but no company cares about anything any more, Just today I had the following happen:

1. A $700 Display Easel was delivered in an unopened package with one leg sheared off at the mount. It HAD to have been packed that way - it could not have been damaged in transit. The supplier will exchange for a new one Monday - hopefully. Although they were very nice, I was on hold for 13 minutes waiting for CS to answer.
2. A $275 lens purchase was marked on USPS Tracking as "Delivery Attempted at 2:39 pm - Claim Form left." There are 135 people at the business location where the delivery was attempted, including a receptionist at the only entrance to the location. There is no claim form.
3. My daughter waited 5 hours for UPS to pick up her packages being sent home from college (rather than paying for checked luggage). When she called UPS they claimed they had knocked on her door several times and called the number on her pickup form. She was sitting in her suite in front of the window the entire time, with her cell phone. She had to borrow a car and RUSH to the UPS Store, where the counter-person was just locking the door ten minutes early.

That's just today.

Makes me want to look at my CS Performance.

Not you too DB... Oh you are so buying dinner next time if I have to put you on the apologists list. If not dinner, then a whole lot of beer if you start talking the 'new strategy" haha

I'm not being an apologist Gus, I'm just surmising how it is.

The ones who need to be paying for dinner AND the beers are the ones who are complaining about the high cost of lenses they don't need.

[jadedrakerider]

Right - Pentax does, except for the 18-250, which was made by Tamron. A few people have been fooled into thinking that because Tokina puts out certain co-designed lenses under their own name, that this means Tokina actually designed and built the lenses for Pentax. But this is not true.

Your pardon please. Allow me to append my previous statement.

People THINK they know who makes Pentax's lenses, and therefore think that a side-by-side comparison is valid.

I can't comment either way since I haven't had the chance to compare them.

[Class A]

There is probably something to the abuse angle, but the rental place was quick to qualify their claims by indicating that the data does not include lenses that had obvious traumatic damage.

They explicitly mentioned abuse and said that a new way to package a particular lens reduced its defect rate. The message was implicit but clearly they considered that some abuse doesn't cause obvious traumatic damage but still (perhaps through accumulated effect) has an effect. Also their mistrust in repair centres diagnosing damage to shock may not be completely warranted as even brand new lenses may have received shock at the factory or during shipping.

Not that I include Pentax in this rant, but no company cares about anything any more, ...

Maybe there are some exceptions but in general I'm completely with you on this.

The customer is only important to the extent it can be used to increase the holy shareholder value. Walt Disney once said "We don’t make movies to make money, we make money to make more movies.". This kind of passion for the product rather than the profit seems to have become a very rare commodity.

[wallyb]

Walt Disney once said "We don’t make movies to make money, we make money to make more movies.". This kind of passion for the product rather than the profit seems to have become a very rare commodity.

It can easily be argued that any semblance of that creed does not exist with the Disney Corporation any longer... or any other large American media-based corporation...

[Ben_Edict]

The numbers really don't say that much except that lenses fail and that this is probably helped by shipping them around a lot and having them treated by users who don't own them. The numbers would be relevant for the SDM discussion, if they included Pentax SDM lenses.

Too bad that SDM capable cameras do not allow to revert to screw-driven operation. That wouldn't be hard to enable and would take away at least some of the heat.

First, I find the lensrental page very interesting. And, in my view, it contains a very valuable assessment, which can be transfered to SDM: Many lenses from all the listed manufacturers have consistently AF and AF motor problems. I think, that these quite fragile mechanisms are a problem with all of them and Pentax may be not an exception, but also may be not really worse. (that's all guesswork, ofcourse)

I would also like to emphasize your last sentence: Pentax should make SDM/screwdriver AF switchable. That should be possible with Firmware ("enforce screwdriver AF"). That would give us a fallback.

Ben