Thanks much Bruce.
It seems I'll be sending my 16-50 DA* to C R I S even tho I can eventually
get it to auto focus.
Called C R I S today and asked to speak to a technician & was told they
aren't allowed to come to the phone.
Called Pentax customer service - no help except he told me to send the lans
in for repair.
Oh well its only money.....
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Walker" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Autofocus issue with 16-50 f2.8 DA*
No recollection whatsoever Ken, my memory is terrible. The sixties weren't
good to me. ;-)
But! Thanks to my messy desk being my filing system, I have the actual
Pentax Pick Slip right here. It says:
0048120 0-G201 GEAR PLATE A ASSY 0.00 0.00
AUTO FOCUS SYS ADJUSTED
MOTOR REPLACED
From elsewhere on this sheet I gather that 48120-2034 is Pentax' internal
number for the DA* 50-135 itself. The single billable replacement would be
the "gear plate A assembly", but covered under warranty so $0.00.
So either a gear or the motor was replaced. Maybe the gear assembly
includes the motor. Any lens repair techs on the list? :-)
-bmw
On 11-03-11 7:40 PM, Ken Waller wrote:
Any recollection of what they did to repair the returned lens.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Walker"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Autofocus issue with 16-50 f2.8 DA*
Anecdotally, it sounds like Pentax has learned from the earlier-gen
16-50 and 50-135 on how to make the later-gen 17-70 and 60-250 more
reliable. Your 200 may be an outlier. :-)
My 16-50 has never given me trouble (touch wood), but my 50-135 SDM
failed completely and was repaired under warranty. It has worked well
since.
My 55 has never failed to focus consistently no matter how long I've
gone between uses of it.
BTW, Joseph: your 50-135 symptoms sound just like mine before it died.
If it's under warranty still, I'd get it to repair pronto.
-bmw
On 11-03-11 4:24 PM, Joseph McAllister wrote:
I have 5 SDM lenses, but use the 60-250 95% of the time for my dog
photography. It works well every time I use it.
However, as I've mentioned before here on the PDML, my 50-135 needs some
help getting started when first mounted. You could say it's my fault for
not using it a few times a month, but I so easily assume blame for
everything.
What I have to do is manually turn the focus ring back and forth over
it's entire range from 10 to 30 times with the lens active for AF. Once
working, they seem to remain so with occasional hesitation. I know these
lenses should be sent off to CRIS or Pentax for "repair", but all of the
lenses are well out of warranty, and were when I used them other than
brand new testing after unpacking.
I'll do a little test right now and report.
16-50* = worked in daylight just fine, but took a while (< a minute) to
work in dim light.
Last used more than 6 mo. ago.
17-70 = worked right away in daylight and dim light.
Last used more than 3 mo. ago.
50-135* = took 15-20 back and forth stop to stop rotations of the focus
ring before it would A/F at all. Took a few focuses
in daylight before it would work in dim light looking at cable box
display. Last used two weeks ago.
60-250* = worked right away in both daylight and dim light. Used a week
ago.
200* = worked right away in both dim and daylight. Last used 2 years
ago.
If that would be of any help to anyone thinking of purchasing any of
these lenses, it was worth the time finding all of them, in file
cabinets, cardboard boxes, and various desk drawers. :-)
On Mar 10, 2011, at 18:33 , Rob Studdert wrote:
On 10 March 2011 23:03, eckinator<[email protected]> wrote:
hard to believe is fine. but I take exception at people saying it was
a lie without producing so much as a shred of proof or a better
explanation. imho that is just unnecessary and uncalled for. I don't
recall who said it and it is all bygones but I remember at the time I
found that pretty weak, Not saying it was you, I honestly can't
remember.
Frankly from an electronics eng perspective it's one of the weirdest
explanations I've heard for what seems to be a mechanical failure.
Joseph McAllister
[email protected]
--
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.
