Can a Mod please delete this thread?

I don't see any fungus in the pictures. Did they say whether it was in the viewing or taking lens? Fungus can grow in shorter times than that, if the camera is kept in a warm, extremely humid environment. 14 weeks is enough time.

They said both lenses...

If it is warm and humid fungus can grow fast, though it usually grows a little slower on non organic material.

Sorry to hear of your trouble. To be honest, your pictures are not detailed enough to show fungus in this lens. I've bought a few lenses on ebay that had a good front pic, but when I looked through it with the aperture fully open and a bright light, there was clear fungus.

Whether fungus can grow in 14 weeks, I can't answer. It is definately a problem for high humidity areas.

I would not be able to declare your camera's lenses as "fungus free" with the provided photos. Even close-up, back lit photos taken with the camera's lenses wide open might not reveal fungus that is readily visible to the naked eye.

The presence of desiccant in a storage container does not guarantee exclusion of moisture and likely would do little to lower humidity levels within the lens. In other words, the effects of previous exposure to moisture or a high humidity environment would probably not be precluded and only be minimally reduced with the presence of desiccant. Desiccant has limited capacity to absorb moisture. There is a physical maximum amount of moisture it can absorb. Once it is saturated it no longer absorbs moisture so desiccant packs must be replaced on a regular basis. In a closed lens case it also depends on natural convective air movement in order for it to function. With positive air flow (think air conditioning) effectiveness is considerably improved.

Is it possible that you overlooked the reported fungus? Fine "spidery" fungus may only be visible with the right conditions (ie. lighting, angle, magnification etc...) and may also be limited to the outer edges of elements where it is less obvious to the naked eye. Personally, I believe that is more likely that the fungus was there and that you somehow overlooked it.

The answer is to have the buyer ship the camera back. You would need to make the buyer aware that you would need to inspect the camera for yourself before taking any action. This would have to be with the understanding that shipping costs would be at the buyer's expense in the event that fungus is not found.

Sometimes you can not answer a question with yes or no, maybe there were a few spores on the lens which were not visible when you were shipping the item. The question would be then why does the new owner see fungus on the lenses now after only 14 weeks, and if he has to take some responsability of his own?

I live in a very humid area. I've seen fungus start in lenses in less than 4 weeks here.

pengland wrote:
I would not be able to declare your camera's lenses as "fungus free" with the provided photos. Even close-up, back lit photos taken with the camera's lenses wide open might not reveal fungus that is readily visible to the naked eye.

The presence of desiccant in a storage container does not guarantee exclusion of moisture and likely would do little to lower humidity levels within the lens. In other words, the effects of previous exposure to moisture or a high humidity environment would probably not be precluded and only minimally reduced with the presence of desiccant. Desiccant has limited capacity to absorb moisture. There is a physical maximum amount of moisture it can absorb. Once it is saturated it no longer absorbs moisture so desiccant packs must be replaced on a regular basis. In a closed lens case it also depends on natural convective air movement in order for it to function. With positive air flow (think air conditioning) effectiveness is considerably improved.

Is it possible that you overlooked the reported fungus? Fine "spidery" fungus may only be visible with the right conditions (ie. lighting, angle, magnification etc...) and may also be limited to the outer edges of elements where it is less obvious to the naked eye. Personally, I believe that is more likely that the fungus was there and that you somehow overlooked it.

The answer is to have the buyer ship the camera back. You would need to make the buyer aware that you would need to inspect the camera for yourself before taking any action. This would have to be with the understanding that shipping costs would be at the buyer's expense in the event that fungus is not found.



I know what to look for, I inspected the lens and there was no trace of fungus in the lenses, I would have disclosed that when I sold anything, haven't had one negative feedback and I usually do a good job at describing items that I sell. He sent me pictures and it does show some haze/fungus, but not readily visible, a flash shows it really good.

Andi Dietrich wrote:
Sometimes you can not answer a question with yes or no, maybe there were a few spores on the lens which were not visible when you were shipping the item. The question would be then why does the new owner see fungus on the lenses now after only 14 weeks, and if he has to take some responsability of his own?



He had the focusing screen cleaned and the person doing it pointed out that the lens had some fungus in it, and he didn't know what to look for prior to this...

Unless you keep your lenses in a nuclear reactor fungal spores are always going to be present. Unless they find favourable conditions (humidity seems to be the main factor) they're going to be dormant, or growing extremely slowly. In an incubator at 100% humidity, and with some food (oil film) present, they might cover a lens in only a day...

It doesn't seem reasonable for a buyer to hold a seller accountable for fungus that grew after he took delivery of a lens. If it grew from being non evident to being evident while in his care, then he mishandled the lens.

It's not reasonable for a buyer to be addressing this so long after the sale, either.

Fungus spores activate if the camera lens is subjected at a relative humidity of 70% for 72+ hours. If the camera has been out of your hands for 14 weeks and the buyer has only just noticed fungus growth, I would say it wasn't your problem IMHO. You don't know how he has been storing the camera during that 14 weeks. For the facts:

http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/29cd78d56723da79c12571180042df52

Speaking personally I store my Canon in a Pelican bag with a digital humidity meter, which I check ever other day. Today my relative humidity is 45%

I really can't comment on the incubation of fungus, but I do have to say one thing regarding the responsibility of the buyer:

When you take delivery of an item, you have a responsibility to inspect it with in a reasonable amount of time. You can't reasonably come back 3 1/2 months late and expect the seller to do something about an issue you're having unless it was clearly negligent. If you're buying older equipment (or even something new) you need to know the issues you may need to look out for, one of which is fungus.

It sounds to me like you know what to look for and would have seen the level of fungus he is describing. I think this buyer stored his camera improperly and is looking for you to fix it.

Booone0 wrote:
I really can't comment on the incubation of fungus, but I do have to say one thing regarding the responsibility of the buyer:

When you take delivery of an item, you have a responsibility to inspect it with in a reasonable amount of time. You can't reasonably come back 3 1/2 months late and expect the seller to do something about an issue you're having unless it was clearly negligent. If you're buying older equipment (or even something new) you need to know the issues you may need to look out for, one of which is fungus.

It sounds to me like you know what to look for and would have seen the level of fungus he is describing. I think this buyer stored his camera improperly and is looking for you to fix it.

+1

Considering the amount of time you said had elapsed and the fact that you are certain there was no fungus present when you sold the lens...you have no obligations to the buyer. If 14 weeks passed from the time you last looked at the lens to the time when the buyer first reported any problem (unless the item was held up in shipping a very long time) .......its case closed.

pengland wrote:
Booone0 wrote:
I really can't comment on the incubation of fungus, but I do have to say one thing regarding the responsibility of the buyer:

When you take delivery of an item, you have a responsibility to inspect it with in a reasonable amount of time. You can't reasonably come back 3 1/2 months late and expect the seller to do something about an issue you're having unless it was clearly negligent. If you're buying older equipment (or even something new) you need to know the issues you may need to look out for, one of which is fungus.

It sounds to me like you know what to look for and would have seen the level of fungus he is describing. I think this buyer stored his camera improperly and is looking for you to fix it.

+1

Considering the amount of time you said had elapsed and the fact that you are certain there was no fungus present when you sold the lens...you have no obligations to the buyer. If 14 weeks passed from the time you last looked at the lens to the time when the buyer first reported any problem (unless the item was held up in shipping a very long time) .......its case closed.

It shipped July 15th and I think he got it around a week later... Going from NY to Louisiana.

Here are pictures of the said fungus/haze... It would be pretty hard not to see something like that before I shipped the camera.

looks like Croco food to me, i dont see how the seller of an item can prevent fungus when the buyer stores his gear in the cellar

Louisiana? As in one of the most humid regions of the US? This is sounding more and more like the buyer's fault...

NY to Loosiana...

I think that says quite a bit.

Not too many swamps in upstate...well maybe the Meadowlands but that's Joisey.

If it has been in Lousiana for 14 weeks, I'd say it isn't your problem. That seems to be plenty of time for this to happen after the sale.