[thibs]

Wasn't the PENTAX DA 18-270mm F3.5-5.6 ED SDM launched just a year ago?

Yep but this is a simple Tamron rebadge and probably uses much more Tamron tech rather than Pentax tech.
It doesn't even have quickshift. On a DA-L, right but on a DA lens, it rings a bell to me.

[snake]

Yes and no (it started as an statement from an employee, not a rumor): Jens Petersen of Pentax Germany said it to Pentaxforums in an interview: Pentax Engineer on SDM Failure and Pentax DC - Photokina 2012 - PentaxForums.com

I did a search on a couple of German forums and can't say the tone is much different from here.

And for the record: I have no SDM lenses and have no intention to by any SDM lens, I'm fine with screw drive lenses until they come up with something more trustworthy.

Incorrect. There appears to be much, in terms of revisionist history. Well in advance of that interview (which I also cited) were people on this forum and DPR and others carrying on about "redesigned parts". Well in advance of me actually stepping into Pentax, in fact. We're talking at least 18 months before then, I was seeing reports of "redesigned parts" from customers having their equipment repaired, as well as people doping forums with this information. I believe fully that Pentax was leaking this via various means, on a yearly basis, and was quite successful with it, while simply throwing parts at the problem, often at consumer expense. If you try and get definitive proof from Pentax about the redesigned parts, they will not provide it to you.

[thibs]

Incorrect. There appears to be much, in terms of revisionist history.

Revisionist? Really? You're playing with fire...

[H. Sapiens]

Wasn't the PENTAX DA 18-270mm F3.5-5.6 ED SDM launched just a year ago?

...

In that case I rest my case ... except it is not a design Pentax put a lot of energy in, but for the occasional phone call to Tamron: Is it done yet?

[johnmflores]

My DA*16-50 F2.8 still works

[snake]

My DA*16-50 F2.8 still works

Posts like this, in a rather flippant way, discount the many people who do have problems. As if to say "I don't have problems, therefore your problems don't exist".

Even if there aren't problems to the degree there actually are, Ricoh now has an image problem on its hands that Pentax before it, and Ricoh now have done nothing to calm. Again, when I was selecting lenses, a premium pentax dealer in my city advised me completely away from SDM lenses. They made it clear that if there were repairs, I would have to pay for their services up front, as they've been shafted with abandoned lenses when people hear of repair charges and Pentax wasn't reimbursing dealers for the repair shipping services.

The SDM problem is now legendary in the camera business and the only thing that perhaps shields Pentax is how small it is to the point that people are often surprised finding out that it's even still around and didn't go out of business.

[Barry Pearson]

In that case I rest my case ... except it is not a design Pentax put a lot of energy in, but for the occasional phone call to Tamron: Is it done yet?

You said "It is also interesting that no lenses with SDM have been introduced for a couple of years now". But there was such a lens just one year ago, not a couple (two) of years ago!

Did the Tamron version have SDM? As far as I can tell, it had something different: PZD (Piezo Drive). If so, Ricoh/Pentax must have supplied the SDM. That suggests that SDM was still a current technology in Ricoh/Pentax just one year ago.

I don't know what your case was, so I don't know whether you made it or not.

[johnmflores]

Posts like this, in a rather flippant way, discount the many people who do have problems. As if to say "I don't have problems, therefore your problems don't exist".

Even if there aren't problems to the degree there actually are, Ricoh now has an image problem on its hands that Pentax before it, and Ricoh now have done nothing to calm. Again, when I was selecting lenses, a premium pentax dealer in my city advised me completely away from SDM lenses. They made it clear that if there were repairs, I would have to pay for their services up front, as they've been shafted with abandoned lenses when people hear of repair charges and Pentax wasn't reimbursing dealers for the repair shipping services.

The SDM problem is now legendary in the camera business and the only thing that perhaps shields Pentax is how small it is to the point that people are often surprised finding out that it's even still around and didn't go out of business.

It's not flippant, it's a statement of fact. The "I don't have problems, therefore your problems don't exist" were written in you head, not with my hand.

There are only two facts here -
1. Those that say that their lenses failed.
2. Those that say that their lenses did not fail.

Everything else...EVERYTHING ELSE...is conjecture

BTW, here's an interesting post by LensRentals.com's Roger Cicala:

Lensrentals Repair Data: 2012-2013

It's a shame that they don't have enough Pentax lenses to include in the data.

Here are my favorite quotes:

"Every manufacturer has some great lenses and some weak lenses."

"70-200 f/2.8 lenses are likely to fail no matter who makes them. We think of them as ‘built like tanks’ because they have that heavy, all-metal case. That case, though, is as packed with mechanics and electronics as anything you’ve ever seen. There’s a LOT of stuff in there that has to work perfectly. Inevitably, some of that stuff breaks."

"All focusing motors will fail eventually. They are electronic and they move."

And I post photos in these pissing contest threads as a way of reminding people that it's the pictures that matter

[snake]

It's funny that you're using the LensRental data to back up a point about Pentax. You do know that was disputed as essentially irrelevant for Pentax, right? And do you know why? By the way, I have pics taken with non-SDM lenses and non-Pentax lenses. Am I posting them? No. Why? Because you're posting them in order to direct attention from a topic that causes dissonance towards yourself and self-promote.

My suggestion is that perhaps you should just not enter these discussions and villify people for openly discussing the SDM, rather than concealing it. OR go right to the source and ask Pentax to do one or both of two things:

-Fix SDM by redesigning the lenses from the ground up. Unfortunately, they are not capitalized enough to do this.
-Tell them to stop throwing parts at the problem, stop making people pay for FOUR repairs on the same lens
-if the claims are unfounded, Pentax needs to offer stronger warranties, exactly as Audi did at one time, Hyundai, etc. Pentax's warranties are barely competitive. That is the first step in getting confidence back up in the line. Not to mention, DA* SDM lenses are a terrible value and a longer warranty (my lowly 17-50 has a FIVE year warranty) will help rationalize their cost.

I can do that, too. Taken with a non-Pentax. An ultra-reliable Tamron 17-50, which has better optics than the 16-50, to boot.

[H. Sapiens]

You said "It is also interesting that no lenses with SDM have been introduced for a couple of years now". But there was such a lens just one year ago, not a couple (two) of years ago!

Did the Tamron version have SDM? As far as I can tell, it had something different: PZD (Piezo Drive). If so, Ricoh/Pentax must have supplied the SDM. That suggests that SDM was still a current technology in Ricoh/Pentax just one year ago.

I don't know what your case was, so I don't know whether you made it or not.

Easy now. English is not my first language and I just looked up "Rest my case" and I have to admit it doesn't mean what I intended to say. Maybe I should have said, I resign my case instead. But I guess I just should stay away from English idioms.

I had forgotten about the Tamron superzoom, partly because it is not a category of lenses that interest me and partly because it was developed by Tamron. I look forward to the day Pentax release something new and developed in-house. I expect the new management will be rather unsentimental regarding existent technology.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

An ultra-reliable Tamron 17-50, which has better optics than the 16-50, to boot.

The Tammy is an excellent lens - I have one. But it is screw driven, so it's not really relevant here. As fas as I know, Pentax screw driven lenses are pretty reliable, too.

Great photo, BTW!

[Barry Pearson]

Easy now. English is not my first language and I just looked up "Rest my case" and I have to admit it doesn't mean what I intended to say. Maybe I should have said, I resign my case instead. But I guess I just should stay away from English idioms.

I had forgotten about the Tamron superzoom, partly because it is not a category of lenses that interest me and partly because it was developed by Tamron. I look forward to the day Pentax release something new and developed in-house. I expect the new management will be rather unsentimental regarding existent technology.

In the circumstances, I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant.

[johnmflores]

It's funny that you're using the LensRental data to back up a point about Pentax. You do know that was disputed as essentially irrelevant for Pentax, right? And do you know why? By the way, I have pics taken with non-SDM lenses and non-Pentax lenses. Am I posting them? No. Why? Because you're posting them in order to direct attention from a topic that causes dissonance towards yourself and self-promote.

My suggestion is that perhaps you should just not enter these discussions and villify people for openly discussing the SDM, rather than concealing it. OR go right to the source and ask Pentax to do one or both of two things:

-Fix SDM by redesigning the lenses from the ground up. Unfortunately, they are not capitalized enough to do this.
-Tell them to stop throwing parts at the problem, stop making people pay for FOUR repairs on the same lens
-if the claims are unfounded, Pentax needs to offer stronger warranties, exactly as Audi did at one time, Hyundai, etc. Pentax's warranties are barely competitive. That is the first step in getting confidence back up in the line. Not to mention, DA* SDM lenses are a terrible value and a longer warranty (my lowly 17-50 has a FIVE year warranty) will help rationalize their cost.

I can do that, too. Taken with a non-Pentax. An ultra-reliable Tamron 17-50, which has better optics than the 16-50, to boot.

Nice photo of what looks to be an interesting space. BW really complements the subject.

But dude, you've got to chill out a bit and stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not vilifying anyone. You're reading things that I'm not writing. I'm in no way disputing that people have had problems with SDM.

I participated in this forum's online survey and looked at the results with interest. What I don't know (and I don't think anyone knows) is how big the SDM problem really is and whether or not whatever problems are happing with the latest copies fall within the standard deviation for the category. Can you categorically tell me (and support it with hard data) that Pentax SDM lenses are any more or less reliable than comparable Nikon or Canon lenses? That was the point of the Lensrentals reference; I hope that in the future they'll rent enough Pentax lenses to add them to their analysis.

If you really do think that the SDM lenses are fundamentally flawed then do something more than complaining on PentaxForums about it. Get the people that have had the problems and file some kind of class action or report Pentax to the BBB or some type of consumer protection agency.

What I will agree with you on is how Pentax has handled all of this. I think that they could have handled the situation better in terms of PR, some level of transparency, and customer service. And yes, I'd love a longer warranty too.

And finally, I'm posting photos because this is supposed to be a photography forum. If it gets to the point where I'm discouraged from posting photos in a photography forum then the world really is upside down.

[gazonk]

Incorrect. There appears to be much, in terms of revisionist history.

Wie bitte...?

Well in advance of that interview (which I also cited) were people on this forum and DPR and others carrying on about "redesigned parts".

I've tried to find such posts on this forum with the search mechanism, and the only post I really find from more than one year ago is actually a post by you, where you make very similar claims (also without any links to back it up), it almost looks like you set up an "at" job to make a similar post one year later

On the German forums, they're not as nice as they are on the english-speaking side of the world. People are still shelling out for their fourth repairs, even after those few people claimed there were new, redesigned parts going into the lenses (without any proof, actually).

The SDM problem is real and noone really objects to that, so no need to try to construct conspiracy theories out of thin air then

[Zygonyx]

My DA*16-50 F2.8 still works

Mine too