A good call. You don't want to be plagued with a lens that might work when you need it. Which reminds me, I have a 540 flash that needs a zoom mechanism repair. Paul
On Mar 11, 2011, at 11:59 PM, Ken Waller wrote: > 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. -- 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.
