Zos, he was referring to very low quality of plastics used in the moving parts of the mechanism and in general to very poor engineering quality of the whole mechanism. But again - we're playing a broken phone here. Suffices it to say, I opted not to buy DA 17-70 and ultimately decided to stay with "good old" screw-driven AF of my Sigma 17-70...
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Zos Xavius <zosxav...@gmail.com> wrote: > i think the big problem is that the lubricant seizes on the sdm motors > rendering them useless. my guess is that they've fixed SDM now that > they finally admitted it was faulty. they should have offered to fix > everyone's lenses. way to stand by your products pentax! fuji bit the > bullet and replaced a bunch of sensors on their cameras. > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Boris Liberman <bori...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Pretty much he said that it was shameful engineering... >> >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Zos Xavius <zosxav...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> what did he say? why would we be insulted? if its poorly built, its >>> poorly built. >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Boris Liberman <bori...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> One of local Pentaxians had 17-70/4. The SDM failed on him and being a >>>> handy person he took it apart. I won't repeat what he told me so as >>>> not to insult anyone. It was a very strong arguments against the SDM >>>> lenses, at least the cheaper ones. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:27 PM, David J Brooks <pentko...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Thanks for the comments so far. Given me some things to think about. I >>>>> have a fader ND filter at 67mm dia, so the Pentax 17-70 would fit it, >>>>> but leery of the SDM from what i have read previously. I don >>>>> t need IS as its in the K-5 body so that would be a wasted Sigma >>>>> feature. Decisions decisions. >>>>> >>>>> Dave >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:21 AM, Boris Liberman <bori...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> I concur. Although when I first saw the lens in your hands, Jaume, I >>>>>> did not expect to own it some day. I should point that it is not that >>>>>> heavy given the speed and zoom range. It is rather well made although >>>>>> indeed eventually the zoom becomes creepy. It does have the zoom look >>>>>> that is handy for transportation, obviously. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Jaume Lahuerta <jlah...@yahoo.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I also have the old Sigma 17-70 (actually I think that I have some >>>>>>> responsibility in Boris owning one...) and I second Boris comments. The >>>>>>> only complaint is that is is a bit heavy and the zoom eventually >>>>>>> becomes loose. >>>>>>> I have physically seen the latest version and I have to admit that it >>>>>>> looks and feels extremely compact. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, my favorite compromise range / IQ would be the 18-135. Sigma >>>>>>> has one but its reputation is worst than the 17-70s and the Pentax one >>>>>>> seems a bit expensive. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Jaume >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----- Mensaje original ----- >>>>>>>> De: Boris Liberman <bori...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >>>>>>>> CC: >>>>>>>> Enviado: Martes 23 de julio de 2013 13:47 >>>>>>>> Asunto: Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dave, I've (the oldest version of) Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5. Such lenses >>>>>>>> can be had for order of USD 250-300. I cannot praise mine enough. It >>>>>>>> successfully replaced DA* 16-50/2.8. Later versions are 17-70/2.8-4.0 >>>>>>>> (notice faster long end of the zoom range) and further introduced HSM >>>>>>>> (Sigma's ultrasonic AF) and OS (Optical image Stabilization). I opted >>>>>>>> out of these as I wanted something as simple as possible so that it >>>>>>>> won't break down just because. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Optically I've no complaints at all. It just what suits me best right >>>>>>>> now if and when I have to shoot with DSLR. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, David J Brooks <pentko...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hey all. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This last week at the plow demo got me thinking again about my short >>>>>>>>> zoom, the 16-45. Normally i take two cameras, the D2H with re 70-200 >>>>>>>>> VR f2.8 and the D200 with the 18-70. I use the 18-70 for the closer >>>>>>>>> shots when the teams come at me. This year i took the K-5 and used >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> 16-45. It performed fine, but at 45 at the long end just does not get >>>>>>>>> what i want before i switch back to the longer zoom. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Im thinking something along the lines of the Pentax or Sigma 17-70 >>>>>>>>> ish >>>>>>>>> lenses, and i think i saw on Henrys site an 18-135??? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I know these have come up before just looking for opinions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also the 55-30 is still on my list, although the sales person at >>>>>>>>> Henreys showed me the Sigma version, a bit cheaper and now i'm >>>>>>>>> humming >>>>>>>>> on that one. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Comments about the short zooms or the Sigma 55-300 appreciated, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dave >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. >>>>>>>>> www.caughtinmotion.com >>>>>>>>> http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ >>>>>>>>> York Region, Ontario, Canada >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>>>>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>>>>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>>>>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> follow the directions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Boris >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>>>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>>>>>> follow the directions. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Boris >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>>>>> follow the directions. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. >>>>> www.caughtinmotion.com >>>>> http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ >>>>> York Region, Ontario, Canada >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>>>> follow the directions. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Boris >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>> 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 >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> follow the directions. >> >> >> >> -- >> Boris >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> 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 > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
