View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
SonicScot
Joined: 01 Dec 2011 Posts: 2698 Location: Scottish Highlands
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 4:17 pm Post subject: Marks on front element |
|
|
SonicScot wrote:
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. _________________ Gary
Currently active gear....
Sony a7
E-M1 Mkll
Rubinar 1000/10 + 2x matched extender
Tamron 500/8 55BB
Sigma 100-300/4
Vivitar Series 1.... 200/3, 70-210/3.5 (V1 by Kiron), 135/2.3, 105/2.5 macro, 90/2.5 macro (Bokina), 90-180/4.5 Flat Field Macro, 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5
Carl Zeiss.... 180/2.8, 135/3.5, 85/1.4, 35/2.4 Flektagon, 21/2.8 Distagon
Nikon.... 55/3.5 micro, 50/1.2
Elicar 90/2.5 V-HQ Macro
Zhongyi Speedmaster 85/1.2
Jupiter-9 85/2
Helios.... 58/2 44-3
Hartblei 45/3.5 Super-Rotator TS-PC
Zenitar 16/2.8 fisheye
Samyang 8/3.5 fisheye
Nodal Ninja 4, Neewer leveling tripod base
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/gazsus/ Website http://garianphotography.co.uk/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sirrith
Joined: 17 Sep 2010 Posts: 215 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sirrith wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SonicScot
Joined: 01 Dec 2011 Posts: 2698 Location: Scottish Highlands
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SonicScot wrote:
I suspected it was coating damage
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.
All the other ones I've seen were at least twice this price, damn it.
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. _________________ Gary
Currently active gear....
Sony a7
E-M1 Mkll
Rubinar 1000/10 + 2x matched extender
Tamron 500/8 55BB
Sigma 100-300/4
Vivitar Series 1.... 200/3, 70-210/3.5 (V1 by Kiron), 135/2.3, 105/2.5 macro, 90/2.5 macro (Bokina), 90-180/4.5 Flat Field Macro, 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5
Carl Zeiss.... 180/2.8, 135/3.5, 85/1.4, 35/2.4 Flektagon, 21/2.8 Distagon
Nikon.... 55/3.5 micro, 50/1.2
Elicar 90/2.5 V-HQ Macro
Zhongyi Speedmaster 85/1.2
Jupiter-9 85/2
Helios.... 58/2 44-3
Hartblei 45/3.5 Super-Rotator TS-PC
Zenitar 16/2.8 fisheye
Samyang 8/3.5 fisheye
Nodal Ninja 4, Neewer leveling tripod base
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/gazsus/ Website http://garianphotography.co.uk/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SonicScot
Joined: 01 Dec 2011 Posts: 2698 Location: Scottish Highlands
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SonicScot wrote:
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.
The seller doesn't accept returns but perhaps I can get a partial refund....... _________________ Gary
Currently active gear....
Sony a7
E-M1 Mkll
Rubinar 1000/10 + 2x matched extender
Tamron 500/8 55BB
Sigma 100-300/4
Vivitar Series 1.... 200/3, 70-210/3.5 (V1 by Kiron), 135/2.3, 105/2.5 macro, 90/2.5 macro (Bokina), 90-180/4.5 Flat Field Macro, 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5
Carl Zeiss.... 180/2.8, 135/3.5, 85/1.4, 35/2.4 Flektagon, 21/2.8 Distagon
Nikon.... 55/3.5 micro, 50/1.2
Elicar 90/2.5 V-HQ Macro
Zhongyi Speedmaster 85/1.2
Jupiter-9 85/2
Helios.... 58/2 44-3
Hartblei 45/3.5 Super-Rotator TS-PC
Zenitar 16/2.8 fisheye
Samyang 8/3.5 fisheye
Nodal Ninja 4, Neewer leveling tripod base
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/gazsus/ Website http://garianphotography.co.uk/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
inombrable
Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Posts: 545 Location: Salamanca, Mexico
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
inombrable wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SonicScot
Joined: 01 Dec 2011 Posts: 2698 Location: Scottish Highlands
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SonicScot wrote:
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. _________________ Gary
Currently active gear....
Sony a7
E-M1 Mkll
Rubinar 1000/10 + 2x matched extender
Tamron 500/8 55BB
Sigma 100-300/4
Vivitar Series 1.... 200/3, 70-210/3.5 (V1 by Kiron), 135/2.3, 105/2.5 macro, 90/2.5 macro (Bokina), 90-180/4.5 Flat Field Macro, 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5
Carl Zeiss.... 180/2.8, 135/3.5, 85/1.4, 35/2.4 Flektagon, 21/2.8 Distagon
Nikon.... 55/3.5 micro, 50/1.2
Elicar 90/2.5 V-HQ Macro
Zhongyi Speedmaster 85/1.2
Jupiter-9 85/2
Helios.... 58/2 44-3
Hartblei 45/3.5 Super-Rotator TS-PC
Zenitar 16/2.8 fisheye
Samyang 8/3.5 fisheye
Nodal Ninja 4, Neewer leveling tripod base
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/gazsus/ Website http://garianphotography.co.uk/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
luisalegria
Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 6627 Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2018-01-18
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. _________________ I like Pentax DSLR's, Exaktas, M42 bodies of all kinds, strange and cheap Japanese lenses, and am dabbling in medium format/Speed Graphic work. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
inombrable
Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Posts: 545 Location: Salamanca, Mexico
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
inombrable wrote:
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). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Aanything
Joined: 27 Aug 2011 Posts: 2201 Location: Piacenza, Italy
Expire: 2014-05-30
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aanything wrote:
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. _________________ C&C and editing of my pics are always welcome
Samples from my lenses
My gear
My Flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
inombrable
Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Posts: 545 Location: Salamanca, Mexico
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
inombrable wrote:
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. |
Yes, I remember you just had a very bad streak right??? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
skida
Joined: 02 Mar 2012 Posts: 1826 Location: North East England
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
skida wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SonicScot
Joined: 01 Dec 2011 Posts: 2698 Location: Scottish Highlands
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SonicScot wrote:
Thanks everyone for all the advice, I knew I'd come to the right place.
I'll contact the seller and explain the problem tomorrow, hopefully he'll want to keep his 100% feedback intact and play fair. _________________ Gary
Currently active gear....
Sony a7
E-M1 Mkll
Rubinar 1000/10 + 2x matched extender
Tamron 500/8 55BB
Sigma 100-300/4
Vivitar Series 1.... 200/3, 70-210/3.5 (V1 by Kiron), 135/2.3, 105/2.5 macro, 90/2.5 macro (Bokina), 90-180/4.5 Flat Field Macro, 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5
Carl Zeiss.... 180/2.8, 135/3.5, 85/1.4, 35/2.4 Flektagon, 21/2.8 Distagon
Nikon.... 55/3.5 micro, 50/1.2
Elicar 90/2.5 V-HQ Macro
Zhongyi Speedmaster 85/1.2
Jupiter-9 85/2
Helios.... 58/2 44-3
Hartblei 45/3.5 Super-Rotator TS-PC
Zenitar 16/2.8 fisheye
Samyang 8/3.5 fisheye
Nodal Ninja 4, Neewer leveling tripod base
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/gazsus/ Website http://garianphotography.co.uk/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57840 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2021-11-18
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
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 _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
SonicScot
Joined: 01 Dec 2011 Posts: 2698 Location: Scottish Highlands
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SonicScot wrote:
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. _________________ Gary
Currently active gear....
Sony a7
E-M1 Mkll
Rubinar 1000/10 + 2x matched extender
Tamron 500/8 55BB
Sigma 100-300/4
Vivitar Series 1.... 200/3, 70-210/3.5 (V1 by Kiron), 135/2.3, 105/2.5 macro, 90/2.5 macro (Bokina), 90-180/4.5 Flat Field Macro, 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5
Carl Zeiss.... 180/2.8, 135/3.5, 85/1.4, 35/2.4 Flektagon, 21/2.8 Distagon
Nikon.... 55/3.5 micro, 50/1.2
Elicar 90/2.5 V-HQ Macro
Zhongyi Speedmaster 85/1.2
Jupiter-9 85/2
Helios.... 58/2 44-3
Hartblei 45/3.5 Super-Rotator TS-PC
Zenitar 16/2.8 fisheye
Samyang 8/3.5 fisheye
Nodal Ninja 4, Neewer leveling tripod base
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/gazsus/ Website http://garianphotography.co.uk/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57840 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2021-11-18
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
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. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
caerwall
Joined: 11 Nov 2010 Posts: 51
|
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 2:03 am Post subject: I have an odd eBay problem at the moment |
|
|
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SonicScot
Joined: 01 Dec 2011 Posts: 2698 Location: Scottish Highlands
|
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 7:50 am Post subject: Re: I have an odd eBay problem at the moment |
|
|
SonicScot wrote:
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. _________________ Gary
Currently active gear....
Sony a7
E-M1 Mkll
Rubinar 1000/10 + 2x matched extender
Tamron 500/8 55BB
Sigma 100-300/4
Vivitar Series 1.... 200/3, 70-210/3.5 (V1 by Kiron), 135/2.3, 105/2.5 macro, 90/2.5 macro (Bokina), 90-180/4.5 Flat Field Macro, 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5
Carl Zeiss.... 180/2.8, 135/3.5, 85/1.4, 35/2.4 Flektagon, 21/2.8 Distagon
Nikon.... 55/3.5 micro, 50/1.2
Elicar 90/2.5 V-HQ Macro
Zhongyi Speedmaster 85/1.2
Jupiter-9 85/2
Helios.... 58/2 44-3
Hartblei 45/3.5 Super-Rotator TS-PC
Zenitar 16/2.8 fisheye
Samyang 8/3.5 fisheye
Nodal Ninja 4, Neewer leveling tripod base
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/gazsus/ Website http://garianphotography.co.uk/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caerwall
Joined: 11 Nov 2010 Posts: 51
|
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
caerwall wrote:
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|