SoundHound wrote:
Always wonder whether used lenses are just the “bad copy” rejects written of in this forum.
I'm curious as to what people think happens to these "bad copies" that get returned to retailers?
Here's a hint - the manufacturers don't take them back... so stores have to sell them to someone else, because they wouldn't stay in business very long if they just ate the costs of all the products that get returned.
The fault lies with the manufacturers who either don't employ a rigorous quality control system or haveQA standards are inadequate, that don't support their retailers by taking back goods that the customer has deemed defective, and don't use tamper-proof seals on their packaging so consumers can have some assurance they are actually buying a new product. Sony's decision to not use permanent serial numbers just adds another fraud-prone wrinkle to the situation, IMHO.
molson wrote:
I'm curious as to what people think happens to these "bad copies" that get returned to retailers?
Here's a hint - the manufacturers don't take them back... so stores have to sell them to someone else, because they wouldn't stay in business very long if they just ate the costs of all the products that get returned.
The fault lies with the manufacturers who either don't employ a rigorous quality control system or haveQA standards are inadequate, that don't support their retailers by taking back goods that the customer has deemed defective, and don't use tamper-proof seals on their packaging so consumers can have some assurance they are actually buying a new product. Sony's decision to not use permanent serial numbers just adds another fraud-prone wrinkle to the situation, IMHO....Show more →
That's what I tried to say too, they don't have any interested to take the dead copies out of the loop. Items stay on the 'lens merry-go-round' until a supplier gets so pissed off or gains a bad reputation online. I'm sure that a forum like FM has some influence on that.
zz wrote:
That's what I tried to say too, they don't have any interested to take the dead copies out of the loop.
Unfortunately the retailers have to buy the products from the manufacturers, but they don't enjoy the same return policy as consumers currently do. Margins on cameras and lenses are better than retailers would have us believe, but at the same time, how many $2000 or $3000 lenses can a retailer afford to take back from customers and toss in the trash?
However, if you have the time to test used lenses then you can possibly get a “good copy“ for somewHat less with a discrete scratch or bit of dust inside the lens that has no effect on IQ.
molson wrote:
In any case, this would not be so much of a problem if Sony used permanent serial numbers. What's to stop someone from swapping out all their lenses every couple of years for new ones, as long as retailers accept returns?
Canon and Nikon report lens serial number over the mount and encode it into the exif data. I suspect the information is available over E-Mount as well, although it's not currently reported/known to the open-source exif tools.
snapsy wrote:
Canon and Nikon report lens serial number over the mount and encode it into the exif data. I suspect the information is available over E-Mount as well, although it's not currently reported/known to the open-source exif tools.
The store is planning to send the lens to Sony to see if they can shed any light on that...
zz wrote: