Yes, the 16-50. Paul via phone
> On Mar 8, 2014, at 5:16 AM, Boris Liberman <bori...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 3/7/2014 11:43 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: >> I bumped my DA* 60-250 when I took a spill last August. It was in a >> soft lens case and there was no apparent damage, but the next time I >> used it the images were soft in places. Did a brick wall test and >> discovered that the focus field was no longer flat. Evidently, the >> elements had been knocked out of alignment. Sent it to CRIS. They >> told me it would have to go to Japan since they didn’t have the right >> tools to work on that lens. They said it would take about eight >> weeks. I told them that worked for me since I could get by without it >> until the auto show in January, at which point I would like to have >> it. It came back to me in December. I repeated the brick wall test, >> and while it was better, it was still a bit soft on the left side of >> the frame. Sent my test pics to CRIS. They said sent the lens back to >> us. I did; they tested as well and agreed with my finding. They then >> contacted Japan. Japan said it was within spec. I disagreed >> vehemently. With some help from Ricoh marketing, and pushing from >> CRIS, Japan agreed to replace the lens. And Ricoh marketing loaned by >> a 17-70 and 16-45 to tide me over. It took another eight weeks for >> Pentax to send the replacement. Today, it faintly arrived, almost >> exactly six months from the day I first sent the old lens in for >> repair. But I’m very appreciative of the help from Ricoh and CRIS, >> and I can’t really fault Pentax. They replaced a lens that had been >> damaged with a new one. Although I would think they should have been >> able to repair the old one satisfactorily. Seems the 16-50 is not >> only hard to assemble at the factory, it’s tough to repair as well. >> Tested the new one and set the fine focus adjustment. I'm now good to >> go. So I shot a clock. Like many other clocks it’s inscribed “Tempus >> Fugit.” Fugettaboutit. >> >> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17702140&size=lg > > Paul, do I understand correctly, that you refer to DA* 16-50 although in the > beginning of your message (fully quoted for your convenience :-) ), you > mentioned DA* 60-250? > > -- > 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.
