Mine either worked out of the box or I can't tell it's bad. It looks great to me. GS
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am I the only person who's DA* 16-50 worked great out of the box and > continues to do so? > > Regards > Bob... > --------------------------------------------------------------- > "I don't mind if you don't like my manners. > I don't like them myself. They're pretty bad. > I grieve over them long winter evenings." > -- Philip Marlowe (Humphrey Bogart) > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >>I suspect that quality control issues are what has delayed the DA* >> 60-250. Hopefully, this long delay is a sign that Pentax is revising >> manufacturing and/or quality control procedures. >> >> My first DA* 16-50 was defective (misaligned focus plane). My second >> one is great. My DA* 50-135 was fine, and I haven't heard many >> complaints about that lens. >> Paul >> On Aug 6, 2008, at 9:22 AM, William Robb wrote: >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Antti-Pekka Virjonen" >>> >>>> I am a bit hesitant to buy another DA* lens now. Should I sell all my >>>> Pentax gear and follow Cotty to the dark side now ;-)? >>> >>> I would be very hesitant about buying any Pentax lens via mail >>> order at this >>> point, I am hearing far too many quality control complaints to >>> trust them to >>> be able to put a piece of equipment together properly. >>> I think it is appalling that a lens as expensive as the 16-50 has >>> generated >>> as many complaints as it has. >>> >>> William Robb > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
