Pentax Web Store bait and switch

[Member69643]

<p>Well, I debated whether to post this experience or not and eventually decided to do so. I know a lot of members who frequent this forum are Pentax advocates and what I write will probably be poo-poo'd by them, but here goes.</p>

<p>Like many of you, on Cyber Monday I got an email from Pentax offering some good deals on lenses. I decided to buy the 50-200mm WR lens. In the add you can see it listed as $100 off. Great, a bargain at $150 or so, so I placed the order. Buyer's remorse hit me five minutes later when I discovered the lens is widely regarded as one of Pentax worst (although you do seem to get a good enough lens for the price) so I emailed customer support cancelling the order. As luck would have it, their website and shipping is so disconnected, my five minute delay meant the lens was unstoppable. I kid you not, it was five minutes.</p>

<p>The lens arrived today. Guess what. It's NOT the WR one, it's the non-WR predecessor which as far as I can tell, isn't even for sale any more, at least not at Adorama. I am not sure how I ended up with this lens. I'd have swore I clicked on the WR one but to be honest, I didn't even know the older non-WR one was even in existance.</p>

<p>I'm sorta mad. The lens is already on its way back. Pentax says they don't refund shipping, so my hasty purchase cost me $17 in shipping. Not horrible, but there's no reason on Earth I should have got the lens, and the WRONG lens in the first place.</p><div></div>

[hinman]

<p>I feel for you Patrick. If you visit the PF price watch forum. Many people get upset with today's deal with $100 off where most items are jacked up by $100 before the discount essentially canceling out any benefit. When I see the deal for $899 for the FA 31, I left the place and see similar deal in BHPhoto and I order it from BHPhoto instead. I don't trust PentaxWebstore, they need to establish some credibility with its loyal user base. </p>

[michael_elenko]

<blockquote>

<p>Buyer's remorse hit me five minutes later<br>

As luck would have it, their website and shipping is so disconnected, my five minute delay meant the lens was unstoppable. I kid you not, it was five minutes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well I sympathize for the hassle and cost of making a mistake. I do this with stuff a few times a year. When I change my mind after placing an order online, it is common for me to have to wait for the item to be delivered and then deal with it. It is no different from changing your mind five minutes after making a purchase at a store: you still have to deal with the returns desk and all that joy.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not horrible, but there's no reason on Earth I should have got the lens, and the WRONG lens in the first place.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Taking the emotion out of it, the simple reason that you received this lens is that you placed an order for it. But Pentax also erred in sending you the wrong one. So both of you made mistakes. The shipping charge is the fiscal cost of the error; if you wanted the WR model, then I would suggest you complain to Pentax because they erred and you shouldn't have to pay for that. But that's doesn't square with your intention. <br>

<br />It's frustrating, but the damage is minute.</p>

<p>ME</p>

<p> </p>

[laur1]

<p>Was it really the Pentax site that did this? I would have them pay the shipping for the return and give me a full refund, as it is their fault.</p>

[Member69643]

<p>Well, looking through their web store now, the 50-200mm non-WR lens is now on page 6 of 6 of their lenses section. When I opened their store front from the ad, I clicked on the first item that said 50-200mm with a red "On Sale" marking. It was listed as "$100 off!" just like the one in the ad and selling for $149.95. That was, in my best guess, the non-WR one and was deliberately placed there to sell the lesser lens to unaware folks. I think Pentax must have a lot of those non-WR lenses that simply won't sell (Adorama for instance doesn't even list the non-WR lens any more) and used this bait and switch to sell them to clueless or careless (me) buyers.</p>

<p>Honestly, I can't see anyone doing that - it's got to backfire with folks getting mad. So I have to believe it was an error on my part in its entirety. My lesson learned is PAY ATTENTION and be SURE you want it before clicking buy.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Lesson learned? Research before clicking "Add To Cart".</p>

<p>What does your confirmation say about what you ordered? You should always check that. Even if you didn't, return the lens and ask for a full refund and be more careful in the future.</p>

[stemked]

<p>Hi Patrick.</p>

<p>I feel for you too. I have been looking at those deals, I guess desecration is the better part of valor. I certain now won't leap unless I've really checked carefully. </p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>"desecration is the better part of valor,"<br>

Don't you mean discretion? Desecration is kind of messy.</p>

[james_gay]

<p>I understand.<br>

Could have been much worse. Just consider all of this "tuition," then move on and...<br>

...enjoy the season.<br>

Cheers... M</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>Desecration is kind of messy.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well I dunno about that, but it's <em>disrespectful, </em>anyway...</p>

[stemked]

<p>I gotta watch more carefully what I post...</p>

 

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I thought I saw something fishy with the 50-200 special as well -- looked like it said WR on the front page (even said 'weather-sealed' as you show) but thought I saw a picture in another place that showed the non-WR one. That said, the image you show clearly indicates WR version. I wonder whether your invoice mentioned WR or not? I think they were being sloppy, and it does suck if you can't convince them it was their mistake.<br>

I don't think the 50-200 is all that awful, especially in the 50-150 range -- and it's quite compact, just slightly larger than the 18-55 kit lens. Not as good as the 55-300 but might be better and cheaper than 18-270 or 18-135 in the overlapping range.</p>

[RickW]

<p>If you paid with a credit card and don't get satisfaction from the Pentax Web Store, you can challenge the charge through your card company. I've had to do that a couple of times with shady merchants.<br>

OTOH, my 50-200 is actually a very nice lens to have. It's small, light, and plenty sharp (my copy is, anyway). It's not the WR version, but I have used it in lots of miserable weather without problems.<br>

Here's a recent shot in gorgeous weather (San Diego):<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17616306-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1057" height="700" /></p>

[peter_russell4]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=4509288">Michael Elenko</a> said<em> ............</em><br /><em>So both of you made mistakes. The shipping charge is the fiscal cost of the error; if you wanted the WR model, then I would suggest you complain to Pentax because they erred and you shouldn't have to pay for that......</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br /> pretty much covers it...makes the thread title look a little excessive ?<em><br /></em><br>

Pete</p>

[trw]

<p>I concur with Rick. I have both versions of this lens and both of them have given some great results. They are not fast or super sharp, but they are versatile, lightweight, compact, and inexpensive.</p>

[Member69643]

<p>The saga continues. The lens was returned (mailed the same day I got it, no less) and Pentax has had it in their hands since December 10th. It always amazes me how fast they can ship, and zap your credit card, but getting a refund is like pulling teeth. I'm sure it will come, but they didn't respond to my inquiry today either. They did agree to pay back their shipping at least, and I have received that refund already.</p>

<p>Note: I'm reporting this for completion. I do expect the refund eventually but it's annoying they don't respond and now have both the lens AND my money. Business as usual.</p>