Lens Build Quality Differences

[steve_rasmussen]

I have been hearing reports of Pentax users buying new lenses and finding dust particles inside. Also, I've heard for the last two years, reports of lens performance inconsistancies among users. The 105mm being the most commonly referred to lens in this category. I believe that both of these issues need to be addressed by Pentax, especially after my tour of the Leica facility in Germany. Leica seems to realize the importance of attention to detail in areas like lens barrel machining, elimination of dust during assembly, consistancy of fit of lens to camera body, lens element centering, hand built craftmanship and great designs. It is my opinion that Pentax made better lenses for the 67 when it was made in smaller numbers, before today's current MF craze. I have noticed that my lenses which were made in several different years, fit the camera differently. This should not happen. Mass production of the 67 has caused problems in Pentax's ability to assure quality. Lessons can be learned from Leica. Attention to detail and 100% testing pay off in happier customers. SR

[dan_edwards]

But then, if Pentax did as Leica does, wouldn't Pentax have to charge

Leica prices?

 

<p>

 

I'll probably buy a 67II system this week, for hand held action

shots! If I bought a Leica it would cost more money!

 

<p>

 

As far as QC goes, it seems like other camera makers have rushed

recent models lately, e.g., the Nikon F100 and it's various problems,

ro the early EOS 3 and the exposure mis-programming. I'm just hoping

my new 67II works as advertised.

 

<p>

 

-dan

[marcelo_p._lima]

Dan, the P67II (at least mine) does work as advertised. But Steve is

right. My lenses (200mm, 90mm and 45mm) do have very fine dust

particles (or I should say 1 particle visible, perhaps in not all the

lenses) which is enough to disturb you if you're investing your money

in them. With all the competition and modern manufacturing techniques

it's unacceptable to have lenses which don't fit the mount or with

dust particles in the lens elements. Pentax is a <i>very</i> weird

company in that it doesn't pay too much attention to customer

feedback, as far as I can tell.

[patrik_bjorklund]

What quality problems has the P67II had?

[joachim_inkmann]

Another experience with Pentax quality control: When I received my

first 90mm lens I discovered a small piece of dirt inside the front

lens. Using a magnifier this piece turned out to be a part of a fly!

The lens was replaced immediately by Pentax, of course. Fortunately,

this was a unique experience. My other equipment (including a 67II)

arrived in perfect condition and works flawlessly.

[steve_rasmussen]

Concerning the quality VS price issue; I believe that Pentax could

improve the quality of its lenses without increasing price. There have

been several quality gurus(including Dr. Deming) that have proven that

quality does not add cost to production. The reason is that with

better quality(process control) you have less rework, repair, scrap

and warrantee returns. All of these are very expensive and are

considered waste. The near elimination of all these things will have

payed for better process controls. It is my opinion that Pentax could

make Leica-quality lenses at their present price. SR

[dan_edwards]

Hmmm, if Deming was right wouldn't Leicas cost less?

 

<p>

 

Well, I know what the partial answer is: Leitz/Leica is going for the

boutique crowd, while Pentax is selling to the masses.

 

<p>

 

You guys have me scared wrt lens problems! I was planning on

ordering from Caymen Camera, but if products out of the boxes need to

be returned until a good one shows up then I'm afraid that the mail

costs will overcome the off shore price advantage!

 

<p>

 

Also, slightly off topic, the thought occured to me that I should buy

the 645n and the lens adapter (to use the 165 f/2.8 and 105 f/2.4

lenses I want) and the 67 lenses, rather than the 67II body. Yes, I

know that the format is different and that should be the deciding

factor, but I have use for a motor drive.

 

<p>

 

What is motivating me towards medium format (well, into an SLR MF,

since I have a rolleiflex) is that my 35mm negs are too grainy at

8x10 and definitely so at 11x14. I shoot handheld action, existing

light, indoors, and the *slowest* film I use is 800 speed! I'm

thinking one advantage of using the 645n is that at f/2.8 I'll only

be using the central (and hopefully sharpest) part of the 165mm lens

coverage!

 

<p>

 

Any thoughts?

[steve_rasmussen]

Dan:

Concerning your idea of using a 645n with 165 f/2.8 for better

sharpness; it is true that this will yield better images but the

difference on this type of lens(Double Gauss)is quite small. The

Double Gauss type is famous for its off axis sharpness. You would

probably not notice the difference between using the 165 on a 67 and

645. SR