SDM question submitted to Ned Bunnell's blog

Hi Jeff:

The choice of whether to purchase SDM lenses is a personal one. There have been SDM failures as evidenced by the amount of internet discussion on the issue. How much is debatable; for me it is 1/4 so far. My failure was an early version of the DA*50-135 and it could be that any issues with the SDM motors was found and newer versions are more reliable.

Again, the key thing is not to stress about it as it is not worthwhile.
You are right about that.

I started this thread in part to get Ned's attention, and I hoped, a response from him. That is why I included his name in the subject line of my OP. Unfortunately, he has not responded.

So, probably time to move on. Some forums lets original posters close out threads. If I could do that here, I probably would :)

--
Jeff

My cat, who likes to sprawl on my keyboard, is responsible for all typos, misspellings, factual errors, and faulty logic in my posts.
 
Ah but Alex my one regularly used screw drive lens has now stripped it teeth that 100% failure for screw drive and therefore shows conclusively that SDM is far more reliable than Screw. :)

I have the figures

1 DA* 16-50 3Year old Fine
2 DA* 50-135 3 yeas old fine
3 DA* 55 2 Years old fine
4 Sigma 400mm telemacro 8 years old broken :(

so over equal lens/years uncontroversial evidence that SDM is the more reliable solution.
Okay, let me get this straight: You are defending Pentax on the grounds that a Sigma lens failed?
You've not got it straight at all, I feel no need to defend Penatx at all why should I they are big boys you know. ?

I'm pointing out cynically that because X fails does not = Y problem.

Its called irony self mocking really as it really pxsses me off my lens failed.

Take yourself for example your level of Pentax failures cause serious concern, It is considerably beyond what any company could sustain as an ongoing failure rate.

I reckon reasonably to have someone such as you with the failures you have to have a decent probability your would need a failure rate near 1 in 2.

So lets assume your failure rate is genuine (I see no reason to suspect you of lying), Then lets also assume Penatc does not have a 50% failure rate which they surely don't (my own experience indicate around 2% across the board.

That means your failures cannot be solely related to Penatx QC and must be caused by other external causes.

Therefore you failure have to be discounted from any probability study in QC as they are obviously and aberration
--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1471087&subSubSection=0&language=EN
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
 
Somehow the ":" symbol got attached to the URL in my previous post.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/21/autos/toyota_recall_brake/index.htm
I would call that customer service.If you use approved fluid you wouldn't have a problem.

Toyota said the problem stems from the use of non-Toyota brake fluid. Toyota-brand brake fluid contains lubricating polymers that prevent the problem

Obviously needs fixing but can't really lay the blame solely at Toyota door either, Of cause you may question the truth of the statement.
--
Cheers,
Alex
--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1471087&subSubSection=0&language=EN
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
 
...We have statements from Pentax saying SDM is fine
We also had some statements from Toyota that nothing wrong were with their brakes.
Since nothing was wrong with Toyota's brakes ... maybe SDM is also fine?
"Worldwide, Toyota is recalling 1.5 million vehicles because of the problem."
http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/21/autos/toyota_recall_brake/index.htm:

--
Cheers,
Alex
My bad, I missed that one.

However, isn't it linked to a maintenance issue? I'd also be curious to see the context in which they said that "nothing is wrong here with their brakes". Was it linked to the accelerator pedal scandal?

If so, they were right: there is no generalized brake issue; as there was no generalized accelerator issue.
For me, Toyota's case is a perfect example of how far can mass hysteria go.

Alex S.
 
Difference here is that you can't exactly imagine that you're having an SDM failure. :)
Maybe you can.
From a certain petition's signatures:

"I would like to use no-SDM autofocus in such lens like 300* 2.8, DFA 100/2.8 macro and ect. with my camera Pentax k20d. I think that SDM motor is unreliable and the supersonic motor is too loud (scary) for animals and birds. Thanks."

Alex S.
Alex, you do see how these types of implications just fuel the fire, right? Telling someone that their hardware failure is of no consequence and on par with an imagined problem is not going to do anything positive for this forum. It's that sort of standpoint that actually helps to generate threads like these.
Sorry, I didn't want to imply your problems weren't real or anything like that. My fault for not being clear (and forgetting to put in a smiley): I was strictly (and jokingly) replying to the part I've quoted.
I know you and a few others feel that you need to 'fight back' in some way here (possibly fighting the last troll battle, as military generals would say, ) but when you discount legitimate problems like this you aren't helping. It's counter-productive. Think about it in the context of this forum, and what goes into someone's incentive to start a thread like this.
I don't discount legitimate problems.

I, myself have some legitimate issues with my K-5 (in fact, the first camera had all of them: stains, FF and flash issues - it's replacement is still showing signs of FF in tungsten light - no stains though); however, my only SDM lens (a 60-250 which unfortunately is not seeing much use) is still working, and probably the most consistently focusing lens I have.
OTOH, I'd like to see higher grade (ring?) SDM motors in future, "pro" lenses.

About this thread, do you really think Ned can answer that? The "question" is pointless, this thread is pointless as well.
Or, look at it this way - if the result of these complaints is an extended warranty, or an applied-rebate for SDM repair for original warranty holders granted for several years after the warranty has expired - how does that affect you negatively? (assuming here that you own an SDM lens.) It helps you, and it increases the resale value of your lens. Right?
Are you saying, we should complain as much as we can? Should even non-owners, that never had a problem help us too?
Sorry, but I don't want such a forum.

Alex S.
 
Difference here is that you can't exactly imagine that you're having an SDM failure. :)
Maybe you can.
From a certain petition's signatures:

"I would like to use no-SDM autofocus in such lens like 300* 2.8, DFA 100/2.8 macro and ect. with my camera Pentax k20d. I think that SDM motor is unreliable and the supersonic motor is too loud (scary) for animals and birds. "
Does this sound like a language issue to you? I'm not sure all Pentax users are native English speakers so would be more generous about assuming what the person is really trying to say without knowing the specifics.

Have you noticed politicians and the media using association to damn a person lately? It seems like the last few years we are seeing more and more of this. The extremes views or actions of others are used so that the true issues can't be talked about. Those are boring, hard to really fix, require thought that avoids dogma, erases the lines between people, and for sure that type of talk doesn't generate donations or sell papers. Seems pretty sad that we fall into this trap, so nothing ever really gets done.

Thank you
Russell

--
http://waorak.tripod.com/
 
Or is this lense you mention not offered with a 5-yr warranty in the US?
New 16-50 is a good value at $750, may be that's why it keeps its value used. Compare it to Nikon 17-55mm at $1300.
--

Winter Tip: Never catch snowflakes with your tongue until all the birds have gone south for the winter.

Real men shoot Pentax because we were born with our own Canons!!
{Ok...ok, some of use just shoot with a PnS but it always makes me happy! :D}
 
...
About this thread, do you really think Ned can answer that?
There was only one way to find out, and that was to ask him.
The "question" is pointless, this thread is pointless as well.
If he had answered, as he should have, it would not have been pointless.
Are you saying, we should complain as much as we can?
Was my OP a complaint? Recall what I asked Ned:
SDM lenses have a reputation for premature failure. Does Pentax have anything to say on the subject?
A reasonable, non-confrontational question, I think.
Should even non-owners, that never had a problem help us too?
Who is "us"? I'm a non-owner who may buy Pentax gear soon. I want to know what I am buying.
Sorry, but I don't want such a forum.
There's not much that can be done about that.

--
Jeff

My cat, who likes to sprawl on my keyboard, is responsible for all typos, misspellings, factual errors, and faulty logic in my posts.
 
Yeah, but Ned is far less likely to say something than Pentax in Japan. Its not his place to make a statement regarding SDM.

From the stats I've seen by far the majority of faults were from the earliest SDM lenses being made ie DA*16-50 and DA*50-135. There are occasional issues with newer lenses, but the stats for newer SDM lenses on this forum are probably no worse than newer limiteds being faulty.

Pentax haven't said anything and its probably because financially its better for them. Lost sales versus lens repair costs.

I've got no doubt there was a manufacturing/QC problem, but I'm also convinced its been fixed and as a result Pentax will have nothing further to say on this issue.

That obviously isn't enough for those who are emotionally tied to this issue in some way.
Hi Jeff:

The choice of whether to purchase SDM lenses is a personal one. There have been SDM failures as evidenced by the amount of internet discussion on the issue. How much is debatable; for me it is 1/4 so far. My failure was an early version of the DA*50-135 and it could be that any issues with the SDM motors was found and newer versions are more reliable.

Again, the key thing is not to stress about it as it is not worthwhile.
You are right about that.

I started this thread in part to get Ned's attention, and I hoped, a response from him. That is why I included his name in the subject line of my OP. Unfortunately, he has not responded.

So, probably time to move on. Some forums lets original posters close out threads. If I could do that here, I probably would :)

--
Jeff

My cat, who likes to sprawl on my keyboard, is responsible for all typos, misspellings, factual errors, and faulty logic in my posts.
--
Justin
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pentaxphotogallery/justinwatson
 
This has been a lens I have wanted since originally buying into the Pentax system 6 years ago. But until they extend the US warranty or let it be known they have solved the "percieved" issue I just cant risk it.
For nothing else the length of warranty reflects manufacturer's confidence in its product quality. Of course, sometimes the manufacturer shortens the length of warranty and price the product down accordingly. But it doesn't seem to be the case for SDM lenses.
--
Rick
 
Yeah, but Ned is far less likely to say something than Pentax in Japan. Its not his place to make a statement regarding SDM.
You are probably right. I do hope that he is pressing Pentax Japan to address the issue.
From the stats I've seen by far the majority of faults were from the earliest SDM lenses being made ie DA*16-50 and DA*50-135. There are occasional issues with newer lenses, but the stats for newer SDM lenses on this forum are probably no worse than newer limiteds being faulty.
I am inclined to believe that you right, but I have not seen the data.
Pentax haven't said anything and its probably because financially its better for them. Lost sales versus lens repair costs.
Are you saying that they are keeping quiet so that their customers get stuck with out-of-warranty repair costs? That would be a serious charge if they knew that their lenses had unusually high out-of-warranty failure rates.
I've got no doubt there was a manufacturing/QC problem, but I'm also convinced its been fixed...
I would like to believe that's true. There is some evidence that it is.
--
Jeff

My cat, who likes to sprawl on my keyboard, is responsible for all typos, misspellings, factual errors, and faulty logic in my posts.
 
From the stats I've seen by far the majority of faults were from the earliest SDM lenses being made ie DA*16-50 and DA*50-135. There are occasional issues with newer lenses, but the stats for newer SDM lenses on this forum are probably no worse than newer limiteds being faulty.
I think you are not considering lens popularity and use in your conclusions. The fast zoom are indeed the older lenses, but they are by far the most popular SDM lenses as well.

If you think about use, do you think a prime will be on a camera more or less than zooms in the 16-135 range? I'm sure people use their DA 300mm lenses, but I bet they don't use them as often as I use my 50-135mm. I bet I don't use my 50-135mm as much as someone that owns a 16-50mm uses theirs.

The 17-70mm is probably on their owners cameras as much as the DA 16-50mm, but the 17-70mm had a much cheaper lens to compete against in the old Sigma 17-70mm and didn't have the added attraction of WR to add value. It now has to compete with the new Sigma 17-70mm which is cheaper, has OS, HMS, and has a four year warranty.

The DA 55mm at $620, DA * 200mm at $1000, DA 60-250mm at $1200, and DA * 300mm at $1500, have probably sold a lot fewer copies. I would be surprised if there were even two hundred of all those lenses together on the forum. I would say the number is closer to a hundred, with each lens averaging twenty or so owners. Even if I'm seriously wrong about the number, the amount of use those lenses get is probably going to be smaller.

Thank you
Russell

--
http://waorak.tripod.com/
 
Difference here is that you can't exactly imagine that you're having an SDM failure. :)
Maybe you can.
From a certain petition's signatures:

"I would like to use no-SDM autofocus in such lens like 300* 2.8, DFA 100/2.8 macro and ect. with my camera Pentax k20d. I think that SDM motor is unreliable and the supersonic motor is too loud (scary) for animals and birds. Thanks."

Alex S.
Alex, you do see how these types of implications just fuel the fire, right? Telling someone that their hardware failure is of no consequence and on par with an imagined problem is not going to do anything positive for this forum. It's that sort of standpoint that actually helps to generate threads like these.
Sorry, I didn't want to imply your problems weren't real or anything like that. My fault for not being clear (and forgetting to put in a smiley): I was strictly (and jokingly) replying to the part I've quoted.
Sorry myself, I took your post in a worse light than I should have...
I know you and a few others feel that you need to 'fight back' in some way here (possibly fighting the last troll battle, as military generals would say, ) but when you discount legitimate problems like this you aren't helping. It's counter-productive. Think about it in the context of this forum, and what goes into someone's incentive to start a thread like this.
I don't discount legitimate problems.

I, myself have some legitimate issues with my K-5 (in fact, the first camera had all of them: stains, FF and flash issues - it's replacement is still showing signs of FF in tungsten light - no stains though);
Sounds like you've paid your dues, then :)
however, my only SDM lens (a 60-250 which unfortunately is not seeing much use) is still working, and probably the most consistently focusing lens I have.
OTOH, I'd like to see higher grade (ring?) SDM motors in future, "pro" lenses.
'Zactly. Sigma has a great implementation.
About this thread, do you really think Ned can answer that? The "question" is pointless, this thread is pointless as well.
I doubt he could answer it if he wanted to, but I think the OP probably guessed that also. IMO it doesn't hurt to make the attempt - because Ned will at least see the question - again.
Or, look at it this way - if the result of these complaints is an extended warranty, or an applied-rebate for SDM repair for original warranty holders granted for several years after the warranty has expired - how does that affect you negatively? (assuming here that you own an SDM lens.) It helps you, and it increases the resale value of your lens. Right?
Are you saying, we should complain as much as we can? Should even non-owners, that never had a problem help us too?
Non-owners - no, I don't see the point of that. Perhaps I would like to see people who do have the issue supported a little better here, without being killed for the message they bring. (to be fair, the forum for the most part is doing that now.)
Sorry, but I don't want such a forum.
We agree we would like to avoid this recurring cycle, amusing as it is:

Hysteria Hysteria

1) someone at some point posts "hey, I don't know if it's just me, but my cam/lens seems to be doing X."

2) Couple other people post "Hey, me too!"

3) Fanboys: "user error."

4) Problem-havers: "No, I know what I'm doing."

5) Hysteria-havers: "I've got it too! Look!" (shows something exhibiting probable problem "Y")

6) Fanboys: "See? That's problem 'Y'. Obviously, no-one can thus have problem 'X'!"

7) Problem-havers: "Ummm... I don't think I'm talking about the same thing."

8) Enter, Trolls: "Heee! Problem X/Y is an obvious indictment of your equipment choice, and thus yourselves!"

9) Fanboys: "&^%&%$(())%^$$#$%"

10) Problem-Havers: "Sigh. Look. I'm having problem X here."

11) Fanboys: "You're all trolls! This forum sucks now, it used to be all about the photography!"

12) Trolls: "Hee!"

13) Hysteria is declared. Some Hysteria-havers join the ranks of trolls at this point, some Fanboys gain a hardened stance, some Fanboys recognize the possibility of X and soften. Some Problem-havers quietly leave the forum, others remain, feeling jittery and jilted for a while.

Trolls retreat under the bridge, watching.... (as always.)

.
Coda:

6 months later, Big Cam Co quietly releases an update that mitigates problem 'X'.

.
 
$550 for a 4 year extended warranty ....Suckers

You could get your 16-50 fixed twice for that.
New 16-50 is a good value at $750, may be that's why it keeps its value used. Compare it to Nikon 17-55mm at $1300.
--

Winter Tip: Never catch snowflakes with your tongue until all the birds have gone south for the winter.

Real men shoot Pentax because we were born with our own Canons!!
{Ok...ok, some of use just shoot with a PnS but it always makes me happy! :D}
--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1471087&subSubSection=0&language=EN
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
 
Insightful and spot on.
Difference here is that you can't exactly imagine that you're having an SDM failure. :)
Maybe you can.
From a certain petition's signatures:

"I would like to use no-SDM autofocus in such lens like 300* 2.8, DFA 100/2.8 macro and ect. with my camera Pentax k20d. I think that SDM motor is unreliable and the supersonic motor is too loud (scary) for animals and birds. Thanks."

Alex S.
Alex, you do see how these types of implications just fuel the fire, right? Telling someone that their hardware failure is of no consequence and on par with an imagined problem is not going to do anything positive for this forum. It's that sort of standpoint that actually helps to generate threads like these.
Sorry, I didn't want to imply your problems weren't real or anything like that. My fault for not being clear (and forgetting to put in a smiley): I was strictly (and jokingly) replying to the part I've quoted.
Sorry myself, I took your post in a worse light than I should have...
I know you and a few others feel that you need to 'fight back' in some way here (possibly fighting the last troll battle, as military generals would say, ) but when you discount legitimate problems like this you aren't helping. It's counter-productive. Think about it in the context of this forum, and what goes into someone's incentive to start a thread like this.
I don't discount legitimate problems.

I, myself have some legitimate issues with my K-5 (in fact, the first camera had all of them: stains, FF and flash issues - it's replacement is still showing signs of FF in tungsten light - no stains though);
Sounds like you've paid your dues, then :)
however, my only SDM lens (a 60-250 which unfortunately is not seeing much use) is still working, and probably the most consistently focusing lens I have.
OTOH, I'd like to see higher grade (ring?) SDM motors in future, "pro" lenses.
'Zactly. Sigma has a great implementation.
About this thread, do you really think Ned can answer that? The "question" is pointless, this thread is pointless as well.
I doubt he could answer it if he wanted to, but I think the OP probably guessed that also. IMO it doesn't hurt to make the attempt - because Ned will at least see the question - again.
Or, look at it this way - if the result of these complaints is an extended warranty, or an applied-rebate for SDM repair for original warranty holders granted for several years after the warranty has expired - how does that affect you negatively? (assuming here that you own an SDM lens.) It helps you, and it increases the resale value of your lens. Right?
Are you saying, we should complain as much as we can? Should even non-owners, that never had a problem help us too?
Non-owners - no, I don't see the point of that. Perhaps I would like to see people who do have the issue supported a little better here, without being killed for the message they bring. (to be fair, the forum for the most part is doing that now.)
Sorry, but I don't want such a forum.
We agree we would like to avoid this recurring cycle, amusing as it is:

Hysteria Hysteria

1) someone at some point posts "hey, I don't know if it's just me, but my cam/lens seems to be doing X."

2) Couple other people post "Hey, me too!"

3) Fanboys: "user error."

4) Problem-havers: "No, I know what I'm doing."

5) Hysteria-havers: "I've got it too! Look!" (shows something exhibiting probable problem "Y")

6) Fanboys: "See? That's problem 'Y'. Obviously, no-one can thus have problem 'X'!"

7) Problem-havers: "Ummm... I don't think I'm talking about the same thing."

8) Enter, Trolls: "Heee! Problem X/Y is an obvious indictment of your equipment choice, and thus yourselves!"

9) Fanboys: "&^%&%$(())%^$$#$%"

10) Problem-Havers: "Sigh. Look. I'm having problem X here."

11) Fanboys: "You're all trolls! This forum sucks now, it used to be all about the photography!"

12) Trolls: "Hee!"

13) Hysteria is declared. Some Hysteria-havers join the ranks of trolls at this point, some Fanboys gain a hardened stance, some Fanboys recognize the possibility of X and soften. Some Problem-havers quietly leave the forum, others remain, feeling jittery and jilted for a while.

Trolls retreat under the bridge, watching.... (as always.)

.
Coda:

6 months later, Big Cam Co quietly releases an update that mitigates problem 'X'.

.
--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1471087&subSubSection=0&language=EN
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
 
I would call that customer service.If you use approved fluid you wouldn't have a problem.
I wonder if Pentax will publish the list of approved lenses for its cameras with the disclaimer that the use of other optics voids the warranty :)

Anyway, your claim of the "user error" sounds familiar to me:
K10d's VPN problem does not exist if you expose your photos correctly.

There is nothing wrong with k10d's autofocus, you can always send it for the "customer service".

There is no k-5 low light front focusing issues, the focusing of other camera is even worse...


I'm glad Toyota and Pentax fanboys do not have any influence on Toyota's decisions :).

--
Cheers,
Alex
 
I would call that customer service.If you use approved fluid you wouldn't have a problem.
I wonder if Pentax will publish the list of approved lenses for its cameras with the disclaimer that the use of other optics voids the warranty :)
They do, try sending you camera in with focus issues with a Tamron attached and see what happens you will not get warranty repair for issues caused by 3rd party lens.
Anyway, your claim of the "user error" sounds familiar to me:
What claim of user error, I've never made any such claim.
K10d's VPN problem does not exist if you expose your photos correctly.
This is trueish exposing correctly reduces k01d VPN to the point its not visible as its caused by channel imbalance.
There is nothing wrong with k10d's autofocus, you can always send it for the "customer service".
I don't believe anyone's ever said that where are you reciting from.?
There is no k-5 low light front focusing issues, the focusing of other camera is even worse...
Again no-one ever said that did they.? They may have said that the k5's focusing errors are in line with Phase detect colour balance errors for all makes.
I'm glad Toyota and Pentax fanboys do not have any influence on Toyota's decisions :).
I suspect nobody would dream of using you as a technical author. :)
--
Cheers,
Alex
--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1471087&subSubSection=0&language=EN
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
 
I agree that Pentax w/b good to include a better warranty, but warranties don't prevent equipment failure, they just offer to repair it. You might still have sdm leave you stranded in a pinch, even if the lens included a 20-yr warranty. That being the case, if the total cost is competitive, if/when I want a sdm lens, I'll just purchase a good extended warranty.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top