Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Marks on front element
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 4:17 pm    Post subject: Marks on front element Reply with quote

I just received a Pentacon 200/4 which I won on ebay, it has marks on the front element which were not mentioned in the auction.

Pentacon front element damage by Gaz Sutherland, on Flickr
Does anyone recognise these marks? Are they something I should be worried about?
I'm wondering if I should be complaining about this because neither the description nor photo alluded to this obvious flaw. Confused


PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If its on the outside of the element, they look like damage to the coating(s), if its on the inside, it could be fungus, but it doesn't look like typical fungus, so I'd say thats highly unlikely.


PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks like coating damage. I'd send it back for a refund, this is an easy to find lens so just find an undamaged one.

The missing coating is likely to cause some loss of contrast and a bit of flare when pointed in the general direction of the sun. It probably will be slight but as I say, it's easy to find an undamaged one.


PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I suspected it was coating damage Sad
It's a shame because the rest of the lens is immaculate, plus it only cost £30. Now I know why it was so cheap. Confused
All the other ones I've seen were at least twice this price, damn it. Sad

Ian, is the loss of contrast really noticeable and beyond help? Or can it be pulled back in post?
I normally try to avoid shooting towards the sun anyway.


PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It shouldn't be severe and should be correctable.

For £30 I'd expect the lens to not have this issue, it's not an expensive lens, it often can be found for less than that.


PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
It shouldn't be severe and should be correctable.

For £30 I'd expect the lens to not have this issue, it's not an expensive lens, it often can be found for less than that.


I'm tempted to keep it really. A search on ebay reveals only 2 such lenses available and the cheapest is £70, plus that one is described as having "some wipe marks to the coatings, on inner elements as well,".
My one doesn't sound so bad now. Laughing
The seller doesn't accept returns but perhaps I can get a partial refund....... Twisted Evil


PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is coating damge, i have a very similar pancolar (although mine doesn´t seem to affect IQ).

In my opinion if it was not described as this, you should send it back for a refund.

I just sold one of these leneses on the bay for 19.99 pounds (this sunday), and other sold for 19.65 the previous day. Not in great cosmetic condition but the glass was immaculate.


PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is the first time I've had an issue with something bought on ebay, so I'm unsure how to proceed.
That's why I came here to see what you guys think.

I think I'll be contacting the seller for sure, although I'm not sure what I'll say yet. Confused


PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've seen much worse on lenses that give excellent performance.
As long as there isn't anything else wrong, put a good hood on it and you won't notice a thing.


PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

luisalegria wrote:
I've seen much worse on lenses that give excellent performance.
As long as there isn't anything else wrong, put a good hood on it and you won't notice a thing.



You are right, like i said before I have a pancolar with similar marks (on the rear element) and the IQ is not affected.

BUT, if the description of the item was NOT correct, at least you should get a partial refund (if you plan to keep the lens) or full refund if you send it back. At least that is my opinion (and how i buy and sell all my lenses).


PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

15-25ukp is what these usually go for.

I've had people return lenses over nothing many times, ebay always gives the buyer their money back, no matter how much they lie and misbehave. Sad


PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Try the lens in critical situations, decide if it's worth keeping: if it is, ask a partial refund anyway - the damage is really evident, it should have been mentioned in the listing. If it isn't, send it back, but consider shipping cost that won't be refunded, so maybe for such a cheap buying it won't be worth it.
I have a Pentacon 135/2.8 with very similar marks (more extended, though) on front element, and it works just fine as long as I use the built-in hood. But I paid 8 euros for it, and I saw the marks before and chose to buy anyway.


PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
15-25ukp is what these usually go for.

I've had people return lenses over nothing many times, ebay always gives the buyer their money back, no matter how much they lie and misbehave. Sad


Yes, I remember you just had a very bad streak right???


PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If the item was incorrectly described, it doesn't matter what his policy is on returns, even if he has worded it to include something like "Sold as is". If the photo didn't show and the wording didn't mention the damage. you can demand your money back. If he disagrees, raise a dispute with ebay.

I feel he will probably offer either a full refund for the return or half refund if you keep. I bought a Zuiko 1.8/50 described as with fungus (it had), but no mention of the sticky iris, and was offered the above choice.


PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks everyone for all the advice, I knew I'd come to the right place. Wink

I'll contact the seller and explain the problem tomorrow, hopefully he'll want to keep his 100% feedback intact and play fair. Very Happy


PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Looks like coating damage. I'd send it back for a refund, this is an easy to find lens so just find an undamaged one.

The missing coating is likely to cause some loss of contrast and a bit of flare when pointed in the general direction of the sun. It probably will be slight but as I say, it's easy to find an undamaged one.

+1


PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, I contacted the seller and told him I wasn't happy. Let him know that at best he'd made a mistake and at worst it was simple deception. Proposed he refund me half the money (I paid £30) because I'd have to buy a new front element, or I'd want full refund plus postage back to him.
He replied just now saying it was a mistake (hmmm) but he was not willing to let the lens go for £15. He has offered to refund me in full and cover the cost of postage.
**as I'm typing this he has refunded the full amount**

Guess I'll be posting the lens back first thing tomorrow.
Lesson learned, thanks to all here for your advice. Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fair decision he will able to sell lens for same amount with proper description and you can buy an issue free for same amount too.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 2:03 am    Post subject: I have an odd eBay problem at the moment Reply with quote

I bought a lens where there was a disclosure that there was a lever cut off the back "by a previous owner" - there was an illustration on the listing but the lens was advised "as working well" and also the lens glass was fine.

When it arrived I found that the lever had been very roughly taken off with a hacksaw and this had also damaged the back surface of the lens, but only cosmetically. I accepted this as worse than I thought but it had been disclosed. So I disposed of the packaging (as you do with the sellers name and return address. Then on closer inspection I found fungus all around the edges of the front and rear elements.

The vendor offered to take it back for refund but despite several attempts would not provide a return address. I had also offered a partial payment in which he would refund 2/3 of the cost only and I would keep the lens and wear it's undisclosed problems. This was declined.

The matter has escalated into a dispute and now a claim for reimbursement. I still have the lens but cannot return it.

The whole matter has gone from fair dealing into "shonky" as it implies that his excuse is that he offered to take the lens back but I have failed to do so.

It is still in Paypal's hands for decision but if they review my correspondence they can easily see my repeated requests for a return address.

Tom


PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 7:50 am    Post subject: Re: I have an odd eBay problem at the moment Reply with quote

caerwall wrote:
I bought a lens where there was a disclosure that there was a lever cut off the back "by a previous owner" - there was an illustration on the listing but the lens was advised "as working well" and also the lens glass was fine.

When it arrived I found that the lever had been very roughly taken off with a hacksaw and this had also damaged the back surface of the lens, but only cosmetically. I accepted this as worse than I thought but it had been disclosed. So I disposed of the packaging (as you do with the sellers name and return address. Then on closer inspection I found fungus all around the edges of the front and rear elements.

The vendor offered to take it back for refund but despite several attempts would not provide a return address. I had also offered a partial payment in which he would refund 2/3 of the cost only and I would keep the lens and wear it's undisclosed problems. This was declined.

The matter has escalated into a dispute and now a claim for reimbursement. I still have the lens but cannot return it.

The whole matter has gone from fair dealing into "shonky" as it implies that his excuse is that he offered to take the lens back but I have failed to do so.

It is still in Paypal's hands for decision but if they review my correspondence they can easily see my repeated requests for a return address.

Tom

It appears you've done all you can to be fair, hope you get a just result in the end. Smile


PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes and I am an "escapee" from Kilmarnock myself - been here longer than I care to remember.

The other matter that was bugging me about the mis-described 50mm f4.0 macro Takumar on the other hand has alternatively just been settled amicably and honourably by the vendor apologising and refunding 1/3 of the purchase price. No need to go to dispute resolution, I just had a good old "Aussie whinge" (using businesslike words), he offered to take it back or adjust the price, trying to be fair I said 1/3 reduction would make me happy, he said ok and refunded it. Sweet, he is a good bloke and I am happy with that.

I wish all such disputes could be so easily resolved. I still have a problematic lens that I probably paid too much for but I no longer feel bad about it.

The other one is just a "Greek Tragedy" - I am sorry for their economy but selling dud lenses proverbally "inside a brown paper bag" is not a way to sort things out. I have bought a few second-hand lenses from Greek vendors and their products and service has been otherwise impeccable so far.

Tom