DA* 16-50mm out of stock?

PentaxPoke · 01-20-2010, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Ash

Can't get enough of Gary's and PentaxPoke's cynicism.

Yes, I admit you are right.

My experiences with my DA* lenses have made me somewhat cynical about them. I have come around to Gary's line of thinking: No more fanboy! I'm callin' it like I see it.

Alfisti · 01-20-2010, 11:34 AM

$100 for a new lens or 16% more ... i'd go the new one. I live by the 'used price needs to be 75% of new" rule.

Originally posted by einstrigger

The prices you see on Amazon that are above $1000 are sold by 3rd parties and not directly by Amazon.

This morning I received a Gold Box offer through Amazon for this lens at $707.70 and don't know whether I should jump on it. They currently don't have it in stock, but at that price it's tempting. I've been observing sold 16-50mm's on eBay and they've been sold anywhere from $610-620 not counting shipping costs.

Is it worth it to pay $700 for brand new? Of course it would be warrantied which you don't get with used copies.

**Ash** · 01-20-2010, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by PentaxPoke

Yes, I admit you are right.

My experiences with my DA* lenses have made me somewhat cynical about them. I have come around to Gary's line of thinking: No more fanboy! I'm callin' it like I see it.

It's all good.
Enough people have been burnt by DA* issues that Pentax really does have to change its attitude about the lenses.

And being a photography company by photographers for photographers, I'd expect that internally at least there is an impetus to drive some serious changes for their DA* lineup.

einstrigger · 01-20-2010, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Alfisti

$100 for a new lens or 16% more ... i'd go the new one. I live by the 'used price needs to be 75% of new" rule.

I think I've come to a similar conclusion. In any case, I have until tonight to think about it, since Gold Box deals expire in 24 hours...

Biro · 01-20-2010, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by einstrigger

The prices you see on Amazon that are above $1000 are sold by 3rd parties and not directly by Amazon.

This morning I received a Gold Box offer through Amazon for this lens at $707.70 and don't know whether I should jump on it. They currently don't have it in stock, but at that price it's tempting. I've been observing sold 16-50mm's on eBay and they've been sold anywhere from $610-620 not counting shipping costs.

Is it worth it to pay $700 for brand new? Of course it would be warrantied which you don't get with used copies.

$700 is definitely a great price for brand new. I bought my 16-50 in July of 2008 for the same price - and that was before all the increases. So far, I've been lucky with the lens. But I have a 16-45 as a back up just in case.

CWyatt · 01-20-2010, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Damn Brit

Probably to cover the cost of repairing/replacing those lenses with SDM failure.

Are new 16-50s still having SDM failures?

orangebikerider · 01-20-2010, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Alibaba

I placed an order last week as my small lens with a new pentax body and advised not available in Aust. until April. Now a little concerned as will be starting a 3 mth O/seas trip mid May.

Hey mate Greetings from downunder in NZ. Just letting you know I bought a *18-50 from Adorrama as part of a large purchase including the *300.
Ordered online on the 5th of Jan 2010 using the best FedX service, and it was picked up once I'd payed 12.5% customs, 7 days latter. thats right 7 days. Fantastic service and the savings are just huge. US $ weak @ moment.
So dont worry, Just order through Adorama. But Use the most expensive frieghting service ($100) the tracking features are Sweet.
Its a big lens though, i'm not used to it. Love my K7 with my F50 1.7.
But the big news for me is how wonderful the *300 is to use, love it.
Also bought a Gitzo carbon monopod, and a rode microphone. And a 77mm pol filter. MMM pressies for my k7.
Oh yeah dont drink a bottle of red wine then go online shopping haha

Regards Christian, Alk NZ

PentaxPoke · 01-20-2010, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by CWyatt

Are new 16-50s still having SDM failures?

New 50-135's are. I can't speak about the 16-50. It has been a while since I had one.

**Ash** · 01-20-2010, 06:09 PM

Any SDM lens is prone to a failure.
Problem is no-one knows which one will fail and when...

esman7 · 01-20-2010, 08:49 PM

Gregoire made an interesting point regarding Bayes Theorem and his findings on the 16-50mm serial no.'s.

His stat analysis shows that you have a 90% chance of getting a good copy if the 4th digit of the serial no. is a 0, 1, or 2.

Check the last page of the 16-50mm DA* sticky thread.

Thanks Gregoire!

lithos · 01-20-2010, 09:11 PM

Maybe Pentax cannabilised its remaining stock to fix the rest of 'em, and now have run out.

Hopefully, it'll send them right back to the drawing board, so maybe we'll see a completely new flagship lens.

Good lord, the amount of failures were utterly unacceptable for a so-called flagship lens.

Maybe the next one'll be D-FA...

*runs like the dickens*

**Ash** · 01-20-2010, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by esman7

Gregoire made an interesting point regarding Bayes Theorem and his findings on the 16-50mm serial no.'s.

His stat analysis shows that you have a 90% chance of getting a good copy if the 4th digit of the serial no. is a 0, 1, or 2.

Check the last page of the 16-50mm DA* sticky thread.

Thanks Gregoire!

Perhaps an indication of earlier models being more prone to failure (if this is a true phenomenon)...
The first 2,000 (then from 10,000-12,000 and so forth) are implicated in the theory, but one can hazard to guess that the first 2,000 may be responsible for the large number of failures?

Seems a little far-fetched, but hey, better hypothesis than none, eh?...

PentaxPoke · 01-20-2010, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Ash

Perhaps an indication of earlier models being more prone to failure (if this is a true phenomenon)...
The first 2,000 (then from 10,000-12,000 and so forth) are implicated in the theory, but one can hazard to guess that the first 2,000 may be responsible for the large number of failures?

Seems a little far-fetched, but hey, better hypothesis than none, eh?...

Could be plausible. I wonder if something similar happened with the 50-135. Unfortunately, we don't have a serial number thread for that.

**Ash** · 01-21-2010, 12:21 AM

Might be a good idea now seeing that the SDM issues with the 50-135 are coming out of the woodwork.

Damn Brit · 01-21-2010, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by Ash

Can't get enough of Gary's and PentaxPoke's cynicism.

All the while, I'm enjoying the beauty of the results I get from my own *working* copy.

Just saw your post you little shit.

I can't speak for PentaxPoke but I'm just being realistic and practical.

01-20-2010, 05:18 PM	#22
orangebikerider Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: auckland Posts: 1	Adorama to Downunder Originally posted by Alibaba I placed an order last week as my small lens with a new pentax body and advised not available in Aust. until April. Now a little concerned as will be starting a 3 mth O/seas trip mid May. Hey mate Greetings from downunder in NZ. Just letting you know I bought a 18-50 from Adorrama as part of a large purchase including the 300. Ordered online on the 5th of Jan 2010 using the best FedX service, and it was picked up once I'd payed 12.5% customs, 7 days latter. thats right 7 days. Fantastic service and the savings are just huge. US $ weak @ moment. So dont worry, Just order through Adorama. But Use the most expensive frieghting service ($100) the tracking features are Sweet. Its a big lens though, i'm not used to it. Love my K7 with my F50 1.7. But the big news for me is how wonderful the *300 is to use, love it. Also bought a Gitzo carbon monopod, and a rode microphone. And a 77mm pol filter. MMM pressies for my k7. Oh yeah dont drink a bottle of red wine then go online shopping haha Regards Christian, Alk NZ

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K5 now in stock in the UK	PMunks	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	1	10-24-2010 07:14 AM
FA 31mm in stock	metungnasi	Ask B&H Photo!	2	08-13-2010 07:26 AM
K-7 in stock at B&H !!!	Samsungian	Pentax News and Rumors	20	07-09-2009 07:44 PM
Why it says in stock...for the K7	LosAnJulien	Pentax News and Rumors	3	07-01-2009 09:38 PM
16-50mm in stock at B&H	Duh_Vinci	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	08-09-2007 02:46 PM

01-20-2010, 11:24 AM	#16
PentaxPoke Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 1,411	Originally posted by Ash Can't get enough of Gary's and PentaxPoke's cynicism. Yes, I admit you are right. My experiences with my DA* lenses have made me somewhat cynical about them. I have come around to Gary's line of thinking: No more fanboy! I'm callin' it like I see it.

01-20-2010, 11:34 AM	#17
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	$100 for a new lens or 16% more ... i'd go the new one. I live by the 'used price needs to be 75% of new" rule. Originally posted by einstrigger The prices you see on Amazon that are above $1000 are sold by 3rd parties and not directly by Amazon. This morning I received a Gold Box offer through Amazon for this lens at $707.70 and don't know whether I should jump on it. They currently don't have it in stock, but at that price it's tempting. I've been observing sold 16-50mm's on eBay and they've been sold anywhere from $610-620 not counting shipping costs. Is it worth it to pay $700 for brand new? Of course it would be warrantied which you don't get with used copies.

01-20-2010, 12:10 PM	#18
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by PentaxPoke Yes, I admit you are right. My experiences with my DA* lenses have made me somewhat cynical about them. I have come around to Gary's line of thinking: No more fanboy! I'm callin' it like I see it. It's all good. Enough people have been burnt by DA* issues that Pentax really does have to change its attitude about the lenses. And being a photography company by photographers for photographers, I'd expect that internally at least there is an impetus to drive some serious changes for their DA* lineup.

01-20-2010, 02:12 PM	#19
einstrigger Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Sacramento, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 728	Originally posted by Alfisti $100 for a new lens or 16% more ... i'd go the new one. I live by the 'used price needs to be 75% of new" rule. I think I've come to a similar conclusion. In any case, I have until tonight to think about it, since Gold Box deals expire in 24 hours...

01-20-2010, 03:05 PM	#20
Biro Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,200	Originally posted by einstrigger The prices you see on Amazon that are above $1000 are sold by 3rd parties and not directly by Amazon. This morning I received a Gold Box offer through Amazon for this lens at $707.70 and don't know whether I should jump on it. They currently don't have it in stock, but at that price it's tempting. I've been observing sold 16-50mm's on eBay and they've been sold anywhere from $610-620 not counting shipping costs. Is it worth it to pay $700 for brand new? Of course it would be warrantied which you don't get with used copies. $700 is definitely a great price for brand new. I bought my 16-50 in July of 2008 for the same price - and that was before all the increases. So far, I've been lucky with the lens. But I have a 16-45 as a back up just in case.

01-20-2010, 03:07 PM	#21
CWyatt Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,291	Originally posted by Damn Brit Probably to cover the cost of repairing/replacing those lenses with SDM failure. Are new 16-50s still having SDM failures?

01-20-2010, 05:42 PM	#23
PentaxPoke Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 1,411	Originally posted by CWyatt Are new 16-50s still having SDM failures? New 50-135's are. I can't speak about the 16-50. It has been a while since I had one.

01-20-2010, 06:09 PM	#24
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Any SDM lens is prone to a failure. Problem is no-one knows which one will fail and when...

01-20-2010, 08:49 PM	#25
esman7 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 322	Gregoire made an interesting point regarding Bayes Theorem and his findings on the 16-50mm serial no.'s. His stat analysis shows that you have a 90% chance of getting a good copy if the 4th digit of the serial no. is a 0, 1, or 2. Check the last page of the 16-50mm DA* sticky thread. Thanks Gregoire!

01-20-2010, 09:11 PM	#26
lithos Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS Posts: 3,261	Maybe Pentax cannabilised its remaining stock to fix the rest of 'em, and now have run out. Hopefully, it'll send them right back to the drawing board, so maybe we'll see a completely new flagship lens. Good lord, the amount of failures were utterly unacceptable for a so-called flagship lens. Maybe the next one'll be D-FA... runs like the dickens

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-20-2010, 09:25 PM	#27
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by esman7 Gregoire made an interesting point regarding Bayes Theorem and his findings on the 16-50mm serial no.'s. His stat analysis shows that you have a 90% chance of getting a good copy if the 4th digit of the serial no. is a 0, 1, or 2. Check the last page of the 16-50mm DA* sticky thread. Thanks Gregoire! Perhaps an indication of earlier models being more prone to failure (if this is a true phenomenon)... The first 2,000 (then from 10,000-12,000 and so forth) are implicated in the theory, but one can hazard to guess that the first 2,000 may be responsible for the large number of failures? Seems a little far-fetched, but hey, better hypothesis than none, eh?...

01-20-2010, 10:32 PM	#28
PentaxPoke Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 1,411	Originally posted by Ash Perhaps an indication of earlier models being more prone to failure (if this is a true phenomenon)... The first 2,000 (then from 10,000-12,000 and so forth) are implicated in the theory, but one can hazard to guess that the first 2,000 may be responsible for the large number of failures? Seems a little far-fetched, but hey, better hypothesis than none, eh?... Could be plausible. I wonder if something similar happened with the 50-135. Unfortunately, we don't have a serial number thread for that.

01-21-2010, 12:21 AM	#29
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Might be a good idea now seeing that the SDM issues with the 50-135 are coming out of the woodwork.

01-21-2010, 02:00 AM	#30
Damn Brit Guest	Originally posted by Ash Can't get enough of Gary's and PentaxPoke's cynicism. All the while, I'm enjoying the beauty of the results I get from my own working copy. Just saw your post you little shit. I can't speak for PentaxPoke but I'm just being realistic and practical.