If you buy from a reputable supplier, there is no risk. B&H replaced
mine without question. What's more, the problem was due to assembly
mistakes in manufacture. I'm sure it's been resolved. (Although pixel
peeping paranoid users will continue to imagine problems.)
Paul
On Nov 9, 2008, at 11:16 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
Hoover like in the namesake dam?
Seriously, you've answered my question completely, sir William. I
get to keep the money.
And no, Paul, I am not in position to *risk* my money in getting
potentially flawed by production DA* 16-50. Locally it is not even
being sold. I can get a DA 16-45/4 though (for $450) which I
probably will eventually.
Boris
William Robb wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Boris Liberman"
Subject: Opinions about DA 17-70/4 SDM wanted
Hi!
I don't recall any significant discussion of this lens. Anyone
owning it? Or is it the general opinion of this list, that this
lens is of insufficient quality? How about distortion at 17 mm?
Does the word Hoover mean anything to you?
Seriously, it's sharp and contrasty enough, but the barrel
distortion is awful.
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.
--
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.
