On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:49:24 -0400
"P. J. Alling" <webstertwenty...@gmail.com> wrote:

> <https://web.archive.org/web/20110317023023/http://members.shaw.ca/hargravep/70-210.htm>

that was instructive. i don't think i'll have the stomach for it...

> I wouldn't say I've had bad luck with the lens, anyone who's seen my 
> equipment knows I don't baby it, (though in the case of the 70-210mm
> my current version looks very nice, I've been a lot more careful with
> it), the biggest problem is a lot of parts are now made of
> unobtainum, and while the outside of the lens is very robust metal or
> plastic covered metal in many cases, (though there are a lot of
> purely plastic parts), simple vibration over time, will cause some of
> the interior screws to work loose and get into places where they can
> wreak further havoc beyond the original issue of the screw coming
> loose.
> The information brush is especially fragile, and is easily damaged by
> at least two different basic failures, mostly because the first
> inkling that there's something wrong with the lens is the zoom ring
> going beyond it's limits, which mangles the brush.
> Once that's happened you'll have to fabricate your own brush as no 
> repairman I know of will do it for you, they don't have the tools and 
> won't improvise beyond a certain point, for fear of being blamed for 
> further problems later, and well the lens just not having that high a 
> resale value to make it worth trying to replicate such a delicate
> part.
> In case you're curious, part of my information comes from partially 
> disassembling one of my lenses on my own*, part comes from the 
> information I got through email conversation with the tech who fixed
> my second lens, and part from this page
> <https://web.archive.org/web/20110317023023/http://members.shaw.ca/hargravep/70-210.htm>
> by a former member of this group, unfortunately now deceased, stored
> in the wayback machine.
> *This not to blow my own horn by the way, I got to a point where I
> found the mangled brush and realized that I'd get no further without
> jigs and tools I just didn't have and were beyond my poor skills to
> synthesize. A shame really as the first lens was the best optically
> of the three, second being the worst, but not my much and the current
> one being somewhere between the other two, (ah, sample variation
> strikes again).
> On 10/2/2018 9:00 PM, Subash Jeyan wrote:
> > i sure hope i have better luck with the lens than you've had. it
> > didn't cost much so, fingers crossed, i think it's a bargain on the
> > whole...
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 15:20:38 -0400
> > "P. J. Alling" <webstertwenty...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> I've owned three of them, the biggest problem is they are getting
> >> old, first sold with the SF series bodies, (1984ish), first
> >> "successful" Pentax auto focus system.
> >>
> >> There are a number of points of failure that become more likely as
> >> the lens ages.   \
> >>
> >> The problem is that the replacement parts are all from donor lenses
> >> which have the same wear.
> >>
> >> Don't get me wrong I love the lens, but of the three I own, one is
> >> in pieces for parts to repair the second which is now jammed,
> >> which I didn't try to get repaired because I was able to buy the
> >> third, for less than the cost of the repair and shipping.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/2/2018 10:42 AM, Subash Jeyan wrote:  
> >>> i've just got myself an F 70-210 f4-5.6, though it'd actually be
> >>> two weeks before i get my hands on it. the reviews of the lens on
> >>> the PF were pretty good and i was curious about the images taken
> >>> with the lens. so i went to PPG to have a look. most of the
> >>> images for that lens in PPG seems to have been taken by Ken
> >>> Waller. indeed, the first 15 images or so were his. superb stuff.
> >>> recognised a few other names from the list too.
> >>>
> >>> i am glad i bought this lens though it doesn't necessary follow
> >>> that the images i make will be half as good. i was planning to
> >>> take the DA 55-300 on my trek in the himalayas next month but
> >>> wondering if i should take this lens instead (coupled with the
> >>> sigma 17-50/2.8).
> >>>
> >>> here is the PPG link for this lens if anyone else is interested:
> >>>
> >>> https://pentaxphotogallery.com/photos/gallery/query?camera=&lens=930  

PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Reply via email to