To switch or not to switch

JohnX is right IMHO, problems are exagerrated and the happy majority say very little because they are quite happy.

This is not to say that problems do not exist, but it applies equally to all marques and all price levels.

Or of course there are many other owners with more SDM failures who don't subscribe to any forum and so we never hear of their issues. Which is just as likely.

I had only one SDM lens - the fabulous DA*300 - the SDM failed without warning and it has been in Japan for the past 2 months now.

If I was buying a Pentax lens with SDM I would only buy new and only buy if the lens was shown to have been produced this year. Unless I was happy to pick up the repair cost and be without my lens for a while should the worst happen - for some this is OK and worth the saving.

I have the 16-50mm, 17-70mm, 55mm and 60-250mm ... have also had 2 (or is it 3) 50-135mm lenses, the 200mm and 300mm.

Probably tempting fate but have never had a problem with any of them.

This is wrong on two counts: factual and ethical.

First, not all products fail equally. SDM lenses can and do fail. Screw focus lenses don't and apparently DC don't either. Pentax have acknowledged (only unofficially) an engineering defect with SDM which they then corrected sometime in 2012. Pentax have charged customers for fixes that should have been made without charge.

Second, the argument from the fact that the majority do not have problems is a head-in-the-sand attitude. Are you really saying we should ignore the issues because 51% of the products have not failed? How about showing solidarity with those Pentax users who have had problems, instead of siding with the mega-corporation? Companies count on this sort of fanboy behaviour so they can avoid their moral and legal obligations.

I wonder why this has become an issue in this thread? All I did was advise the OP to find lenses made in 2012. Do people really think this is bad advice?

I've never had a SDM failure either. I have a 17-70 and a 60-250 and am on my second 50-135 (having foolishly sold the first one).
I think Mike P's initial advice is excellent, and those are the two lenses I would keep if I had to sell off everything else.

Factual and ethical? Not guilty.

No I'm not siding with anybody, just saying what I think. And nobody knows what percentage of failures there is, so 51% is presumably just pulled out of thin air.

Anyway, if anyone has a problem with a lens it obviously needs to be addressed. It's certainly true that the more complex lenses become, the more possible faults also become. Manual focus lenses rarely failed, although early SMC Pentax-A 50mm f1.7 lenses could have a problem with the aperture ring. That's the only lens problem I personally have ever had.

This has to be a first? Quoting one-self? But, what I said I stand by, albeit based on the poll from the other forum, which indicates that there was a c20% SDM failure rate amongst the 1500 or so Pentaxians who responded to their survey.

I'm not suggesting that's a fair or reasonable failure rate - it's not - nor was it necessarily a statistically valid survey, but it's the only one we've got to my knowledge.

Link here; http://www.pentaxforums.com/sdmsurvey.php?do=viewresults

Interesting spread of results.

I agree. Unfortunately it's a very black and white set of results, i.e. failed/didn't fail, whereas my research suggests there are a number of 'failed' SDM lenses that have been successfully resurrected by their owners, these failures being in some way associated with periods of non-use of the lenses in question. If correct, the true incidence of actual failure of the SDM motors may be lower.

Just in case I now give my SDM lenses a quick 'run' once a week or so.

I have 3 SDM lenses, 2 of which have failed and I am still happy...when the 16-50 was lightening my wallet of £180 I looked into getting a 17-70 from Jessops - that was faulty - but doesn't put me off the brand...although in common with most of us we wish Pentax would acknowledge a problem, but Pentax have gone through regime changes twice since the DA* lenses were launched - so who is liable for lenses before 2012? Pentax, Hoya or Ricoh?

how do you know this? Have you asked every owner of a screw focus lens or a DC lense how their lenses are?

We have our stains and SDM frailties....but just visit Canon or Nikon forums on DP review to get a picture of the reliability of those products.....

I realise you are winking but I am not sure why. So I only ask you to re-read what I actually wrote, especially the word "apparently".

The 17-70 is a good lens, but it is surpassed by the 16-50, which really is nearly as good as the best primes (which means the FA Limiteds, and one or two others).

G

Yes. It is bad advice.

You like to talk as though you have immense experience of photography. During a period when I was rekindling an old interest in fiction, I took the opportunity of perusing a few of your many websites. (You are a true Jack-of-all-trades!)

On one of them I found this statement: "I have only in the last five years become seriously engaged with this pursuit." "This pursuit" being photography.

The photography site is sixth in a "hub" which lists your "websites in order of decreasing activity."

Now, you're obviously a very clever and a very busy man, but even if you fill every unforgiving minute with sixty seconds worth of distance run, it is clear that you just don't have the knowledge to speak authoritatively on lens failure rates.

I suggest that you apologise to JR for your offensive suggestion that he was unethical. People who argue dishonestly (like planting a suggestion that some lenses have a failure rate of 49%) should use the word "unethical" sparingly.

Incidentally, I have never heard a person whom I respect use the pejorative term "fanboy". In my experience, it exists only in the vocabulary of persons whom I should not care to find sitting next to me at dinner.

G

PS: Please don't bother sending me another PM threatening legal action. If you do, I shall print it out and place it in the lavatory for it to amuse my guests - before serving a more utilitarian function.

Yes I agree that the 16-50mm is better than the 17-70mm in most areas but the question was:

With those requirements as I see it the only way to do that is with the 17-70mm, even second hand I doubt a 16-50mm/60-250mm/prime combo could be done for £1200.

I was just thinking that it's worth remembering that "covering" a range of focal lengths does not have to mean that we have no gaps. Walking backwards and forwards can fill those gaps quite happily as it's rarely essential to be able to use, say, 67mm as well as, say, 70mm.

The simple way round is to use the 16-45mm combined with the 55-300mm, leaving lots of change from £1200. I doubt very much that anyone would notice any technical difference in practice between those lenses and more expensive ones. Technique and skill will have far more effect on the outcome.

The entire range requested is almost satisfied by the new 18-270mm. apart from maximum aperture perhaps, and adding the 12-24mm to that, or even just the diminutive 15mm, would be a nice duo for travel.