Paul,
While I am not arguing with your statement that this lens is less likely
to fail, I am not sure if there is sufficient information for that
conclusion about the more recently produced lenses of this model.
If you are judging by the people reporting in the regular forums, like
dpreview, pentaxforums, etc., - it is not a good measure, as there is
an implicit bias there.
The sheer fact that this lens has been on the market for a while, means
that much fewer people from those forums are buying it today (then in the
first few months/year on the market).
This means that if the lens is still as vulnerable as before, you wouldn't
hear about it as much as before.
Also, since the SDM failure is well known, some people do not see reason
to publicly complaining about it. (I had an SDM lens [a different
one] failing recently, and this is the first time I am mentioning it.)
Paul, I am not saying your conclusion is wrong or right, I am just saying
I don't think we have sufficient supporting information available, unless
you have some other sources (e.g. from Pentax-authorized repair center).
However, you might be right that DA* 300mm in general might be less prone
to this problem (for an unclear reason). This has been discussed in this
earlier article on PF (based on the survey they conducted):
https://www.pentaxforums.com/articles/photo-articles/pentax-sdm-failure-survey-results.html
(Also, note, that that PF article also mentions lack of "newer" vs "older"
difference. But, at the rate of the failures reported for *this* lens, - 8
out of 120, - they do not have statistically sufficient data for *this* lens.)
HTH,
Igor
Paul Stenquist Fri, 18 May 2018 07:20:46 -0700 wrote:
I don’t think you have to worry about SDM problems with a new DA* 300. The
newer motors seem fine. Reports of failure are now rare.
Paul
--
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.
