It appears that FedEx Ground is faster than UPS Ground as I already got your package. Thank you.
Anyway, the lens is in stated condition and works fine after a quick test, except one thing though. There are some sort of marks on the front and rear elements that won’t go away after cleaning. I assume that you probably missed that because it’s not that easily noticeable unless you make the surface a little foggy. I was able to notice it right away because the lens was kinda cold when it got here. Note here that this sort of issue worries me quite a bit because, if the marks did some sort of alteration to the coating, it could reflect the light differently.
What’s your take on this?
If it’s alright with you, my plan is I’m going to buy a residual oil remover like this one (which will cost me about $12-$14 after shipping):
And I’ll try to clean it. But my question to you is, if the marks are still there after I try with the fluid, you would honor the return? If so, since it’s a trade, how would you like to do this?
Thank you and I’ll be looking forward to hearing back from you.
P.S. I didn’t think about this before committing with the trade because I assumed that the lens would be in perfect shape, except the minor blemish that you mentioned before. I have to make the glass a little foggy before taking all photos. The last one is the rear element.
He didn't reply to my email, but sent text messages instead. And the conversation went like in the pictures.
Basically, my plan was to use ROR to remove the strains. But I wanted to make sure that he was aware of what I planned before I proceed. Of course, I needed to make sure that he would take it back if they wouldn't come off.
If you guys find that I was out of the line, please let me know. Maybe I wasn't aware of it. Anyhow, just because someone thinks that the smears should have no effect on image quality, it should automatically mean I should be okay with it, shouldn't it?
I have to say that I have never fogged a lens to look at the surface, other than fogging it while cleaning it.
The 24-70 were also selling for $1,000 - $1,200 quite recently. So $950 is a very, very good price if that is what you paid for it.
I would think that after you clean it if you are not happy with it, you could probably sell it as an "8" for that amount of money.
However the conversation went, rather than trying to rehash history, I would say clean the lens as soon as you can. Take test shots with it. If it bugs you and you are not happy, see what you can sell it for.
Then, before you actually sell it, let the original seller know what you are offered for it. See if she/he will make up the difference. Perhaps agree on that strategy before you start.
But unless prices have changed quite a bit in the past few weeks - I know selling is a little slow right now - I don't think you will have trouble selling it?
I've bought quite a few lenses and I've never 'breathed' on them to check for blemishes.
If the lens looks perfect without fogging, and takes good photos, it sounds like the seller honestly didn't notice. I don't think they were trying to pull a swift one.
There are other 'torture' tests that very few 2nd hand lenses will pass with flying colours (like shining a torch through it to check for dust).
Yes, he could have handled it differently, and relationships can deteriorate fast depending on the wording of emails and the personalities involved, especially as the seller can't see the lens and verify it himself. Sounds like trust issues on both sides.
At the end of the day if you can't see the marks without fogging the lens they will have no affect on your photos, and I doubt it will seriously affect your resale value.
I can't see the lens in person of course, but from your second photo the lens looks fine. I guess different people have different standards, but if you really want a cosmetically perfect lens, I'd buy a new one next time.
scottam10 wrote:
I've bought quite a few lenses and I've never 'breathed' on them to check for blemishes.
If the lens looks perfect without fogging, and takes good photos, it sounds like the seller honestly didn't notice. I don't think they were trying to pull a swift one.
I didn't breathe on it. The lens was sorta shill when it's out if the box. So, the fog appeared right after I unboxed it.
I gave a benefit of the doubt that he didn't know about it in the email. But I wouldn't jump up and down with joy after he immediately wrote me off about the blemishes.
scottam10 wrote:
I can't see the lens in person of course, but from your second photo the lens looks fine. I guess different people have different standards, but if you really want a cosmetically perfect lens, I'd buy a new one next time.
Obviously, we have different standards. Based on what you said, it makes it okay for a seller to sell a used lens without disclosing all details.
Like I mentioned in the email, I simply asked what the original owner had to say about it. I believe it was fair from me to make him aware of the issue before making any more detailing on the glass.
I guess I have a different standard than some of you. So, are you guys saying that, if I don't disclose this information and you find out the lens has such blemishes, you wouldn't care less about it?
That's not what I'd do, but maybe that's what I can expect from some members here from now on.
So is everyone posting on b&s from now on is supposed to include a picture of their lens after fogging it up? Grow up. If you have such high standards for your gear then why are you buying a used 24-70 for $950?
No, there's a big difference between not disclosing a serious fault that he really should have seen and "selling a used lens without disclosing all details" when you're talking about very faint marks that can't be seen without fogging the lens.
Although I obviously can't see the lens in person, from your photo the lens looks fine without fogging it, and if he looked at the lens without blowing on it (I've never blown on a lens), it seems that he honestly didn't notice any issues with the lens.
If he didn't notice any issues, how could he disclose it?
I don't understand 'devalued my item to make it sound better'. What do you mean?
scottam10 wrote:
No, there's a big difference between not disclosing a serious fault that he really should have seen and "selling a used lens without disclosing all details" when you're talking about very faint marks that can't be seen without fogging the lens.
Although I obviously can't see the lens in person, from your photo the lens looks fine without fogging it, and if he looked at the lens without blowing on it (I've never blown on a lens), it seems that he honestly didn't notice any issues with the lens.
If he didn't notice any issues, how could he disclose it?
I don't understand 'devalued my item to make it sound better'. What do you mean? ...Show more →
Please let me rephrase my question then.
If I don't disclose some details about the lens because I never noticed it and you find out the lens has such blemishes, you wouldn't care less about it?
About the marks, why do you think they didn't come off? Let me give you the worst possibility? Have you ever seen an element that had some fungus growing into the coating layer that, when it's cleansed, the coating comes off with the fungus? Of course, I didn't make such conclusion right off the bat. (Again, please read my email.)
Like I said, I simply wanted to make the seller aware of the problem by asking what he thought. Of course, his response would tell a lot about what he knew or didn't know about it.
About the trade, I listed my item at $820. He contacted me to offer a trade with ~$200 from my end. I did add a little over $200. So, it's at least $1,020 in my point of view.
Wahoowa wrote:
I guess I have a different standard than some of you. So, are you guys saying that, if I don't disclose this information and you find out the lens has such blemishes, you wouldn't care less about it?
That's not what I'd do, but maybe that's what I can expect from some members here from now on.
There's a difference between not disclosing a known issue with a lens you're selling and selling a lens with an issue you are unaware of. I have bought/sold a number of lenses here on FM, and like many other have already said, I've never thought to fog up the lens. It's a bit of a strange situation if you ask me.
That being said, the seller/trader could have handled the issue better. Personally, I'd probably have given you a slight refund if you decided to keep it, depending on the details of the trade. Trades are rarely an exactly even transaction and someone usually gets a slightly better deal. Without knowing what lens you traded for the 24-70, I can't say who came out ahead in this transaction. If, as the seller/trader stated, he received a $950 lens for his 24-70, I might feel a bit differently because you already got a pretty good deal on the lens and maybe a slight refund isn't warranted.
After hearing only your side of the story, I think your standard for trading here on FM is just fine and how I would prefer others handle buy/sell transaction as well.
I've seen lenses with fungus and I agree that it is a serious problem, it costs a lot to have it cleaned from internal elements by a technician and there can be permanent coating damage. If it's not treated, fungus can continue to grow until the lens is unusable.
I have bought a lens with fungus. The seller wasn't knowledegable enough to recognise it. I returned it for a refund.
If your 24-70 has fungus, I agree you have a serious issue and have every right to be upset. From what I can see though, it doesn't look like fungus damage
Wahoowa wrote:
About the trade, I listed my item at $820. He contacted me to offer a trade with ~$200 from my end. I did add a little over $200. So, it's at least $1,020 in my point of view.
Hmmm, sounds like a pretty even trade. The seller should have at least paid for the ROR if he cared about his feedback rating.
jeraldcook wrote:
There's a difference between not disclosing a known issue with a lens you're selling and selling a lens with an issue you are unaware of. I have bought/sold a number of lenses here on FM, and like many other have already said, I've never thought to fog up the lens. It's a bit of a strange situation if you ask me.
That being said, the seller/trader could have handled the issue better. Personally, I'd probably have given you a slight refund if you decided to keep it, depending on the details of the trade. Trades are rarely an exactly even transaction and someone usually gets a slightly better deal. Without knowing what lens you traded for the 24-70, I can't say who came out ahead in this transaction. If, as the seller/trader stated, he received a $950 lens for his 24-70, I might feel a bit differently because you already got a pretty good deal on the lens and maybe a slight refund isn't warranted.
After hearing only your side of the story, I think your standard for trading here on FM is just fine and how I would prefer others handle buy/sell transaction as well. ...Show more →
Thank you for your comment.
Of course, as a seller myself, I try to describe my items as best as I can. I admit that I might have missed something about my lens. I once sold an L lens that I didn't realize the weather seal on the mount was tattered. Did I know about it? I did not. Did I stand behind it? I did.
Like I mentioned earlier, I listed my item at $820. He contacted me for a trade and he's the one who made an offer for $200 difference. I didn't expect to have any partial refund on the lens. I only expected that seller would honor a return if the blemishes didn't come off after using residue oil remover.
Lastly, I did text him that I posted this thread and told him that he should follow up.
scottam10 wrote:
I've seen lenses with fungus and I agree that it is a serious problem, it costs a lot to have it cleaned from internal elements by a technician and there can be permanent coating damage. If it's not treated, fungus can continue to grow until the lens is unusable.
I have bought a lens with fungus. The seller wasn't knowledegable enough to recognise it. I returned it for a refund.
If your 24-70 has fungus, I agree you have a serious issue and have every right to be upset. From what I can see though, it doesn't look like fungus
Note here that I have yet concluded that it's an issue with fungus. But I have to expect the worst. That's why I sent him an email asking if he'd be okay if I use ROR to try to treat the glass and if he would take it back if they wouldn't come off. I believe it's a fair request.
One more thing to add though. When he offered me for a trade, since his feedback was kinda minimal, especially on selling, I asked if he'd be willing to send the lens to me first. He refused. To be honest, at this point, the whole situation makes me feel that he is well aware of the condition of the lens. That's why he was quite defensive after I made such a simple request.
I agree that you needed to stand behind the tattered weather seal. This clearly has a potential impact on weather performance.
The question is whether he should have noticed faint marks that only show up when the lens is fogged?
Trust me, those marks will have no impact on lens performance (if you don't believe me, take a tiny bit of a post-it note and stick it to the front element. Even huge blemishes on the front element will have no impact)
Of course I agree that obvious blemishes and scratches need to be disclosed. It just seems that your particular blemishes are all but un-noticeable, and it's quite possible that the seller didn't notice them.
