PetKal wrote:
Helen, here is also something that I believe should be considered for advertising/describing those types of items: where there is an apparent deficiency in such an item which might influence its performance and/or resale value in a significant way, an effort should be made to document the deficiency with a photograph.

In the case of that 200 f/1.8 lens, such defficiency was internal dust in the amount which apparently merited a "V" grading of the lens. Yet the listing contained no photograph which would allow someone to actually see what's involved. Almost like buying a pig in a poke.

I think this is a general problem with most of the used hardware from all of the camera stores. There are times when a used lens seems like a good deal, but I won't even touch it if the seller can't even find a stock image of the item, let alone take a picture of it.

I think it would be quite helpful if all of the used camera stores would just provide the people who appraise camera equipment with a P&S digital camera for the sake of providing images to potential buyers on their site. Otherwise it feels like a gamble and few really want to gamble on the subjective ratings of hardware.

oster wrote:
BTW, a significant error on that EBay listing was that there could be no returns on this item. Apparently, that was an error, and the 14-day return policy would apply...


Now you tell me?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

kakomu wrote:

I think this is a general problem with most of the used hardware from all of the camera stores. There are times when a used lens seems like a good deal, but I won't even touch it if the seller can't even find a stock image of the item, let alone take a picture of it.

I think it would be quite helpful if all of the used camera stores would just provide the people who appraise camera equipment with a P&S digital camera for the sake of providing images to potential buyers on their site. Otherwise it feels like a gamble and few really want to gamble on the subjective ratings of hardware.

We always supply pictures upon request; I am assured that plans are in progress to have these provided as a matter of course on the website

Yakim Peled wrote:
oster wrote:
BTW, a significant error on that EBay listing was that there could be no returns on this item. Apparently, that was an error, and the 14-day return policy would apply...


Now you tell me?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.




I found out just this morning - my reply was that the person responsible should be shot or fired.......It's my red hair, you see. Makes me crazy! 'specially when our customers are being messed about.....

Sincerely

Helen Oster
Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador

helen.oster@adoramacamera.com
www.adorama.com

I think if the return policy was mentioned in the ad it would've sold for a lot more Maybe even to me

Have a great weekend Helen!

Dennis

oster wrote:
I found out just this morning - my reply was that the person responsible should be shot or fired.......It's my red hair, you see. Makes me crazy! 'specially when our customers are being messed about.....

Sincerely

Helen Oster
Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador

helen.oster@adoramacamera.com
www.adorama.com


Selling an item mistakenly "as is" (i.e., no returns) and then inadequately described as well, is certainly not good. We expect much better from a company like Adorama.

I would also sugest that the front line salesperson who botched up that auction sale posting shouldn't be disciplined too harshly. However, the manager responsible for your e-bay sales operations should be given a week off without pay or something of that nature. That would be a much more effective message to the rest of the organisation.

Be that as it may, your openess and absence of defensiveness about the whole matter is much appreciated.

In other (good) news about Adorama, just received a 30 x 20 metallic print from them....it's simply stunnnnnning, awesome print job, Adorama !! Thx !!

As for my used 1Dmk2 that I bought from them, I did see pictures of it before purchasing and there was a 90-Day warranty as well. This case of the 200 1.8 seems a 1-off... heck, I would have bought it if I had known about the 14 day return !

Red hair? A Ha! I knew that picture of yours reminds me of someone but it is so small I forgot. Now I remember. Are you related to Julianne Moore?

Joking aside, I agree with everything Peter said.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

If Adorama had corporate testes and an examplary sense of fairness, they would compensate Yakim Peled for his major expenditure of time on the subject auction as well as mental anguish which has been caused by Adorama's error in the description of the lens in question.

As an example, a compensation might take form of Adorama offering to Yakim Peled another 200 f/1.8 lens at, say, cost+10% basis, whereby the "cost" is defined as money Adorama paid towards the acquisition of the said lens.

PetKal wrote:
As an example, a compensation might take form of Adorama offering to Yakim Peled another 200 f/1.8 lens at, say, cost+10% basis, whereby the "cost" is defined as money Adorama paid towards the acquisition of the said lens.

Doing that for Yakim would make me an Adorama customer. Just saying.

PetKal wrote:
If Adorama had corporate testes and an examplary sense of fairness, they would compensate Yakim Peled for his major expenditure of time on the subject auction as well as mental anguish which has been caused by Adorama's error in the description of the lens in question.

As an example, a compensation might take form of Adorama offering to Yakim Peled another 200 f/1.8 lens at, say, cost+10% basis, whereby the "cost" is defined as money Adorama paid towards the acquisition of the said lens.

Hey, I like this idea a lot. Actually, as they are rare, 200/2 IS under the same conditions would also be welcomed. Helen?



Happy shooting,
Yakim.

please. adorama owes no one anything. The only thing that might warrant being done would be re-run the auction, with the correct disclaimers. the only thing that would result is the price would be higher. Frankly, I think that lens is overpriced @ 2650 anyway. Look around, they can be had cheaper if you really have to have one. Trying to parlay some typos on an auction into cost + 10% on a new 200/2 IS is the height of arrogance, IMNSHO. Time to just man up and let it go. It's just a lens, one of many. Life goes on.

-Ed

Ed Sawyer wrote:
Frankly, I think that lens is overpriced @ 2650 anyway. Look around, they can be had cheaper if you really have to have one. Ed

Ed, if and when you see a cheaper no-beater 200 f/1.8 plase give me a shout. I just might be able to find some extra room in my bag for it.

Ed Sawyer wrote:
please. adorama owes no one anything. The only thing that might warrant being done would be re-run the auction, with the correct disclaimers. the only thing that would result is the price would be higher. Frankly, I think that lens is overpriced @ 2650 anyway. Look around, they can be had cheaper if you really have to have one. Trying to parlay some typos on an auction into cost + 10% on a new 200/2 IS is the height of arrogance, IMNSHO. Time to just man up and let it go. It's just a lens, one of many. Life goes on.

-Ed

Come on, it was a joke. Haven't you noticed the smilies both Peter and I used?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

kakomu wrote:
PetKal wrote:

I think this is a general problem with most of the used hardware from all of the camera stores. There are times when a used lens seems like a good deal, but I won't even touch it if the seller can't even find a stock image of the item, let alone take a picture of it.

I think it would be quite helpful if all of the used camera stores would just provide the people who appraise camera equipment with a P&S digital camera for the sake of providing images to potential buyers on their site. Otherwise it feels like a gamble and few really want to gamble on the subjective ratings of hardware.

True, one of the advantages of FM buy/sell. People are able to take more of a personal approach that makes a buyer more at ease in understanding what they are getting in what is often in costly transaction.

hi Yakim -

sorry, missed the smilies. (I actually use adblock plus in firefox to block most of the extraneous graphical nonsense in most forums, incl. ads, smileys, avatars, etc.)

Peter, I'll keep an eye out for 200/1.8 user copies.

-Ed

Here we go again :

"Please take me home "

I can't now.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Here is another potential bargain.
Cheap 200 f/1.8

PetKal wrote:
Here is another potential bargain.
Cheap 200 f/1.8



Yeah but new member with no history is a big risk for such a big bucks item

Ian.Dobinson wrote:
PetKal wrote:
Here is another potential bargain.
Cheap 200 f/1.8



Yeah but new member with no history is a big risk for such a big bucks item

Yeah seems shady. Why would someone put that as their first item to sell. they wont get a good price just becuase of that even if it is real.

True enough.
In addition, the seller calls the lens "mint". Supplies only one photo of the lens. Not good at all.