Just bought a Canon FD 85mm f1.2 L!

DSG · Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 544 Location: London, UK.

Got it on ebay for just £310! Very Happy

...Heres the auction link:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110443436022&_trksid=p2759.l1259

I'm not worried about the mount being seperated from the lens as I wont be using the FD mount anyway...The plan is to convert it to SA mount.
Whilst I wait for it to arrive (which could be a week or more away) the only thing that really worries me about it is that the outer diameter of the rear element holder tube may be bigger than 48mm...Because thats the biggest rear element diameter that the SA mount can take.
Does anyone know the diameter of the rear element tube?

Thanks.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

I think you're OK. I have an 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical, which admittedly is a different formula, but probably not all that different when it comes to the rear element tube diameter. I just measured mine and it's right at 35mm. I can't see the L versions diameter being 13mm greater than that, so I think you're probably OK.

poilu · Expire: 2019-08-29

wow! congrats! superb bargain, dream lens

DSG · Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 544 Location: London, UK.

DSG · Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 544 Location: London, UK.

Farside · Expire: 2013-12-27

I notice the seller covers his ass by saying he doesn't know if any parts are missing.
From what I can see, the existing rear element looks complete - ie, I don't see how an additional rear element would be held in place, with any degree of accuracy. Is your informant absolutely sure there is another rear element that's really missing?
It's a lot of money to drop on an ornament.

SVP · Expire: 2017-12-17

I'd rather agree with Dave, from the eBay listing pics no rear element(s) appear to be missing.

patrickh · Expire: 2011-11-18

Are we sure the picture is of the actual item? You know how they are on ebay!

patrickh

DSG - real bummer if it's the case

DSG · Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 544 Location: London, UK.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

trifox · Expire: 2014-05-29

Hi DSG --

It seems to be that the rear glass IS NOT ON YOUR LENS...
I am sorry to say that --- BUT FINGERS CROSSED ANYWAY...
We have taken this lens in a bits before. The rear glass is in fixed position and it's overhanging the barrel AT ALL FOCUSING DISTANCES.

it looks like this:

----

There were a few lenses on German Ebay some time ago. They had the same problem and went for 300 EURos or so..

I almost bought them -- but the seller had a statement about this in his description..

tf

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

Click here to see on Ebay

rear glass are perfect condition in my term this is not means MISSING!

Even if sold as is blah-blah , report immediately to paypal.

DSG · Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 544 Location: London, UK.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

I got ya. I took another look at my 85/1.2 Asph. The rear element protrudes out far enough where it is flush with the rear "flange", and appears to be encased in a very thin tube. If I measure the opening diameter that the element pokes through, I'm getting about 37mm. Comparing what I have in my hand to the photo of the 1.2L above, it looks to me like the 1.2L's rear element tube diameter is roughly the same and that the element itself might be just a tad smaller in diameter.

DSG · Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 544 Location: London, UK.

Farside · Expire: 2013-12-27

trifox · Expire: 2014-05-29

basically ---- yes ..

the thing is: there is not reason to take this element out of the rear piece --

until you do some operation with it --

it must be fixed to the lens barrel to be in the fixed position because of the floating element..

tf

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

That rear piece is shown in the auction photos, and it looks pretty clear to me that there is no glass in it. I can only think that this is probably where the damage originated, which caused the dismantlement in the first place.

DSG · Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 544 Location: London, UK.

rx7speed · Joined: 19 Feb 2009 Posts: 14

I would report it to paypal then as item not as described and see if you can get your money back.
you have two things that might work for you here.

DSG · Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 544 Location: London, UK.

fatdeeman · Joined: 13 Jun 2009 Posts: 780 Location: UK

I really hate people like this, I'd say 50% of lenses I buy on the bay, be they cheap or expensive are in some way damaged or imperfect and the seller has deliberately tried to hide it either by acting as if they are a clueless novice, making a big deal of all the things that are good and not mentioning the bad things at all or by deliberately mis describing things such as calling fungus dust.

Then there are sellers that deliberately take pictures from angles that hide the flaws!

I even bought a lens from one seller, a tamron 103a that had extensive damage to the filter ring that he had blurred out in the photo!

I make a point now of emailing sellers a list of questions and even then they will lie and then say how they are "not an expert" when you complain as if it makes it ok.

You generally have a choice of keeping the faulty lens or sending it back at your own expense, which isn't so bad when the lens cost a lot but when you had a bargain lens where the postage cost more than the actual item it leaves you out of pocket!

I would fight this guy all of the way, he obviously knew the element was missing, it was probably him that broke the lens in the first place.

I cannot understand how people can sleep at night after taking £300 from someone like that, why is that when I sell something I feel compelled to describe every single flaw and defect?

Keep us updated mate, if I can think of any way to help I will let you know.

I'm very tempted to start a blog about the trials and tribulations of buying lenses on ebay.

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

I made hundred of successful purchases on Ebay and I did only a few less than ten with bad ends.

When they were not ended happily I bought those lenses are extremely cheap, obviously seller wasn't trustworthy. Nobody like to sell his own property for nothing. My basic rules is next:

I buy only from those sellers who has excellent feedback ratio and offer nice return policy and I can pay with Paypal.

If I buy from others who has any of them missing, I count it it probably will ending badly, these are low amounts so no big deal to loose them.

Current case is nasty, because seller clearly state this lens has rare part.
I believe you will claim successfully at Paypal based on evidences.

fatdeeman · Joined: 13 Jun 2009 Posts: 780 Location: UK

Looks like he has recently purchased a Biotar 75mm F/1.5 for £250, the guy is obviously no newcomer to photography. He has also sold a CARL ZEISS JENA tevidon lens in the past, that's probably a few hundred quids worth. Via google I can also see he bought a Tokina 70-200mm ATX F/2.8, that's another pricey one!

Looking at his feedback, all he has bought in the past are lenses going by the names of the sellers such as r-aerophoto, cam.plus, jackscamera, team-photo and ferndowncameras (let's hope he had a taste of his own medicine there!)

I find it hard to believe he is the type of person who wouldn't know an element was missing from the Canon lens.

Ok, that's enough google stalking for now!

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

Everybody has fallen into an Ebay trap sooner or later.
I always got the best results when I spoke loud and strong. So start a Paypal dispute as soon as the timing allows, and say very clear what is wrong, and make the guy understand that if he does put obstacles to refund, you will take the lens and the Ebay/Paypal receipts to the next police station.

-