p.6 #1 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
I've had a couple of close calls on here, and wont be trading here again. Not Freds problem, not sure if it being outside CONUS paints a ripmeof target on my head.
p.6 #3 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
Dennis I am really sorry this has happened to you. Its a buyers worst nightmare. I really hope you get your money back and I do hope that Fred nails this guys Ass to the wall and puts him off this site for good.
I have been lucky enough to own 200 1.8 in the past. As you probably already know this lens would have to have been really banged around to get all that damage. I am well aware that the screws in the lens hood do get loose and fall out over time. They hold the mounting blocks on that are inside the lens hood. I even have a few of those hard to find and get screws sitting on my desk.
I have no doubt that is the seller admitted to using images that he took when he first got the lens instead of taking pictures when he got ready to sell it, then that seller was well aware he was trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
The fact that the seller avoided contact with you or it was very delayed contact when it finally happened, also indicates he was already aware of the problem because he knew what he shipped.
Certainly American Express will stand behind you on this one irregardless of what paypal does. I also have confidence that Fred will step in quickly and do what he has to.
p.6 #5 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
kevinsullivan wrote:
Note: If you escalate to your CC, I believe PP protection then no longer applies. Check PP's buyer protection policy carefully.
Interesting point. I didn't know that. OTOH, in the case of fraud, which this appears to be, I think the CC is the best place to go. I've been on both sides of PP resolutions, and they don't cover return shipping. In this case, the OP should get back penny one, and all of his other pennies, too.
p.6 #6 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
ComicDom1 wrote:
I have been lucky enough to own 200 1.8 in the past. As you probably already know this lens would have to have been really banged around to get all that damage. I am well aware that the screws in the lens hood do get loose and fall out over time. They hold the mounting blocks on that are inside the lens hood. I even have a few of those hard to find and get screws sitting on my desk.
Jason
You are quite right........the exterior condition of that lens suggests many years of careless use. It is next to impossible to simulate such process and attain such lens condition overnight, or by a shipping incident.
I suppose it is possible to cause accelerated aging of that type over the course of just one year, although I'd expect that most people would baby their new expensive/mint lens at least during the first year of ownership.
p.6 #10 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
cputeq wrote:
What a turd - both the seller and the lens (does it at least work and have good optics?)
here's hoping for a speedy resolution.
I was too disgusted to even try it out. It came Tuesday, I opened the box, felt like I'd been kicked in the nuts, took the pics, put it away and that's it. Haven't opened the box since.
p.6 #12 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
PetKal wrote:
I suppose it is possible to cause accelerated aging of that type over the course of just one year, although I'd expect that most people would baby their new expensive/mint lens at least during the first year of ownership.
Peter, that's what I said to him and that's when he gave me the line about selling to a shooter and not a collector. He obviously doesn't take care of his equipment. I couldn't imagine beating what just last year was a flawless 200 1.8.
p.6 #14 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
I think Peter is a smart feller (I pass on the spoonerism ) but I disagree about the 'accelerated aging' theory, as evidenced by the 'latter' photos.
That puppy has experienced many, many years of sustained use; lots of bag wear, at least a few dings, and probably some more severe events. That doesn't mean that it can't take most excellent photos, but it's definitely not what you signed up for. Also, it appears that the seller had malicous intent. Good luck with this.
p.6 #16 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
dennisgibson wrote:
Peter, that's what I said to him and that's when he gave me the line about selling to a shooter and not a collector. He obviously doesn't take care of his equipment. I couldn't imagine beating what just last year was a flawless 200 1.8.
Indeed, it takes a real brute to cause such lens ageing so quickly. Even if Phil doesn't have the serial number of the lens he sold to that fellow, he might still have the fabrication code which is normally sufficient to identify the lens uniquely.
p.6 #18 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
jcolwell wrote:
I think Peter is a smart feller (I pass on the spoonerism ) but I disagree about the 'accelerated aging' theory, as evidenced by the 'latter' photos.
That puppy has experienced many, many years of sustained use; lots of bag wear, at least a few dings, and probably some more severe events. That doesn't mean that it can't take most excellent photos, but it's definitely not what you signed up for. Also, it appears that the seller had malicous intent. Good luck with this.
Jim, that "accelerated ageing" I thought was only possible, but I do agree with you, perhaps not likely, which then would suggest that the lens Dennis just got may not be the same lens which Phil sold to that feller a year ago.
p.6 #20 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
Phil sent me a link to a few pics from his archives and after zooming about a million percent it does look like the same date code of the one he sold to him although it was a little blury in the pic.
Archive 2013 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater. 
(does it at least work and have good optics?)
) but I disagree about the 'accelerated aging' theory, as evidenced by the 'latter' photos.