Mark, please notice that said "it /seems/ to be a general consensus" and not "everyone knows that...". I am not trying to shout "gloom-n-doom" here, but either way, a number of personal testimonies will not prove the claim. I am glad your lens works. It is very unfortunate that Ecke, Bill Robb and others had to deal with SDM motor failure nonetheless. Be it due to lack of use or not, but the problem is there.
Boris On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Mark Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > Boris Liberman wrote: > >>On 10/2/2010 5:58 PM, P N Stenquist wrote: >>> Doesn't Pentax Forum whine about everything? I believe there is a >>> problem, but it's blown out of proportion. My lack of failures or luck >>> isn't bullshit, it's fact, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a set of >>> SDM lenses that get more use than mine. >> >>Sorry for popping in here. Paul, you seem to be among the more active >>photographers on the PDML. It also seems to be a general consensus that >>SDM failure is more pronounced the less the lenses are put to use. > > It may be the general consensus but my 16-50 has had trouble-free SDM > despite often spending months sitting idle between uses. I think the > "less use = more failure" hypothesis probably falls under the heading > of what BF Skinner termed "superstitious behavior". -- 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.
