Rumoured 70-200mm f4

As far as I know there have been very very few problems with the 60-250mm SDM wise. Same can be said for the 55mm, 200mm and 300mm. The 16-50mm and 50-135mm (and to some extent the 17-70mm) are another matter though.

There are new motors, still called SDM, but not related to the original motors. Things move on, just like SMC lens coatings would have changed over the years.

I agree John. They do change. And there have been fewer problems with the 60-250. Not sure if that is just as a percentage or because fewer were sold and so less reported. The mech in the 60-250 is different and the same change of code does not fully put the SDM to sleep and so in some areas they conflict. However there have been quite a few reported cases with it. More so than the 200 and 300. I suspect that may be because there is less strain on the motor in a fixed focal length design but I'm guessing on that part..

Some of us are on our 3rd motors for our 16-50s John. Even the chap who fixed mine last time (Asahi Photo) said that even new batches contain duff motors and need to be sent back....

I have had a defective 60-250, replaced under warranty and has been fine since.... that one failed before my 16-50 failed for the first time.

I was really meaning the new motors fitted to new lenses such as the 50mm f/1.4, which are totally different to the original SDM designs.

Both my 16-50 and 50-135 went to JP for new "supposedly" better improved motors when they failed. The 16-50 has failed again so I'm only on my second but rather than pay another £100 or so for the repair, it is now screwdrive on all the Pentax bodies. The 50-135 is still ok at the moment.

As many will know, I have been and will remain a long term fan of Pentax and now Ricoh. But at the same time, I also remain "realistic". The problem with that series of lenses is well documented on various sites. I do not "blame" Ricoh for not taking on legacy problems from the Pentax era but I do think it is wrong that such problems are denied when there is so much evidence from reputed sources. Having said that, many of the OEM makers are the same or at least no better or worse. Fuji with the XF1 lens problem is another. In some cases when asked for a warranty repair, they even tried to make out that is was accidental damage and charged for the repair. Ricoh/Pentax have repaired the lenses under warranty but most often it has failed just outside of warranty.

I do not believe it does anyone any good if such problems are "glossed" over because of brand loyalty.

I fully agree John. That is why I would like to see a "new" lens and not a re-badged/re-worked 60-250.

you're looking for another 60-250 - can I help???

Wey-Hay, I found my 70-210 f4 lurking in the bottom of the bag with my P50.
Thought "This is a bit of a lump".
Put it on the scale, converted to grams, came out at 725.86g - and that is with both caps, and a 58mm Hoya Skylight on.
Go plastic, rather than glass/metal and could be a nice basis for reworking. It even has a "macro" function - looks like about 1:1 at 15 inches, if you can call that macro!
Geoff

I would be seriously miffed if any of my original SDM lenses suffered from motor failure. I do sympathise with those who have had to put up with this, but to put things in perspective, all seven of them fail to disappoint.

I know that some day something will go wrong, but to date, none of my lens motors; DC, old SDM, new SDM or camera screw drive motors, have been problematic.

Nearly a year on and nothing so far. Here's hoping it's being developed and won't be too long. With my Irix 15mm and D FA 24-70mm all I need now is the WR 70-200mm to complete my all weather landscape kit

Thanks! I forgot about the 60-250mm which looks lighter and smaller than the 70-200mm f2.8 and also a hell of a lot cheaper!

When I've cleared off some of the outlay on the DFA 24-70 I think I'll look to grab one of them and sell my Sigma 70-200mm f2.8