p.8 #1 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
dennisgibson wrote:
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.
Honestly I would not bother. Just leave it in the box just in case this guy tries to blames things on shipping and also it would be better for you just not to handle it so you cannot personally be blamed for any damage.
This way your cover your butt and keep yourself from being responsible for anything but getting your refund.
p.8 #8 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
Gregory Rogalsky has a January 26 2013 photo of the lens, very blurry, on his smug page. You can see a couple of screws missing on the lens hood, so it seems to be the same lens. Hard to imagine him having two of those lenses and selling the bad one.
Thus the conclusion is that he must have ruined a mint lens in 14 months or less. (Did he brass it by driving thousands of miles with the lens hanging like that?) Aside from being a fraudster, what a stupid schmuck!
Put his full name (Gregory Rogalsky, Rogalsky Combatives International, RogaltacDesign, Airdrie, Alberta) in every post, which will elevate the prominence of this thread in search results. He has had (and still has) every opportunity to make this right with the OP, but hasn't. If he does make it right including paying all associated costs and expenses (shipping, phone) plus a little extra, he can post about it here and it will be in the record. Until then, his name is still Gregory Rogalsky.
p.8 #9 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
How far away are you from Gregory Rokalsky address ? Sorry i did not read the whole thread replys, as it is too long now.
I would treat this personally if possible. He looks and behaves like deserves to be confronted. I would never be contended with a lens like that, you were deceived of course.
Mr Gregory Rokalsky should be visited by local "friends".
p.8 #11 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
Another picture from earlier, posted by Gregory Rogalsky. Perhaps he did have two lenses and sold the beater, representing it fraudulently as the "mint" lens. But there are some very strange optical aspects of this picture that I can't figure out.
Link to original size image 5616 x 3744: _MG_3330.jpg
p.8 #15 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
Hey Dennis, I live in northern Montana, only about 5 hours south of him. Next weekend I was planning to make the trip to Calgary to check out the new Canon "Image Square" showroom. You could sell me a $1 interest in the lens (enough to claim ownership), take the evidence with me to Calgary, and file a police report claiming theft and fraud. Just a thought.
p.8 #16 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
Dennis, have you carefully inspected the condition of the lens front meniscus ?
One more thought: what could be a complicating factor in trying to resolve this problem is that the seller might feel justified in sending you the lens in a significantly reduced condition because, in his opinion (this is my speculation only)....
(1) The lens has undiminished IQ compared to when he got it first, or
(2) That particular lens copy is of exceptional IQ, or
(4) The payment he got for it is less than the cost of his trade to Phil last year, i.e., he got a raw deal out of it all.
p.8 #20 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
Dennis, You have been mugged and robbed & no less.
I wish you luck in recovering your purchase price in full.
The demonic seller should also be punished for the assault on the lens. I have never, ever seen such mishandling and abuse of photographic equipment. It looks as if it was stolen by bandits in the African desert, thrown in the back of a pickup, and hauled around there loose for a year. Maybe he uses his Rolex for an anvil as well?
Archive 2013 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater. 
no worries Ralph!