browsing the buy and sell. you sometimes see lenses with extensive body damage.
with dings, scrratches. scuffs some look like they were in the dryer for several spins.
Im jus wondering what kind of usage are these put through. do some people just not care.
are they just tossed around like a pen on ones desk.
I realize professionals sometimes need to scramble to get a shot. and equipment will bump here and there..
I look at lenses like I do cars. If the visible condition is good, i.e. the body, paint and interior have been cared for - logic dictates that the owner cared for the motor, as well.
If it's beat up, chances are the oil hasn't been changed with any regularity, and normal maintenance of what I can't see has probably been ignored.
I'm continually shocked at how much abuse these lenses can take. Granted, I'm a freak for taking care of my stuff, but it makes me feel good to know they can take such abuse and still work perfectly. If you're not too concerned about aesthetics, than a lens like this might be a bargain for you. Chances are that it'll work fine for many years to come.
This stuff is usually owned by a newspaper in which multiple people use a piece of equipment . . each one does not take care because the blame for wear and tear will be shared.
From what I have seen, L lenses may look like crap but be perfect on the inside.
azpatrick2000 wrote:
This stuff is usually owned by a newspaper in which multiple people use a piece of equipment . . each one does not take care because the blame for wear and tear will be shared.
True. Also, a lot of shooters (myself included on occasion) carry multiple bodies on their shoulders (like my preferred setup, one with a wideangle and one with a short tele... mainly that's because that's what I own ). When you do that, it seems no matter how hard you try, the bodies swing around and bash into each other. I think I could make good money selling a special beltpack that kept one body on each side of you without letting them swing around but still giving them enough room to bring to eye level for shooting.
Lenses are built to be used! I see scratches as "battle scars"
I would check out the lens properly before I bought a secondhand lens that looked like that though.
I will not use the word 'abuse' to describe a lens or camera that shows marking on the body. If you use the same two or three lenses/cameras day-in and day-out for 200+ days a year, and have them always to be ready to shoot without the protection of a camera bag, those lenses/cameras will definitely show some 'battle scar'.
I look after my cameras/lenses and usually store them properly. But, when the timing is short and critical, I worry only about getting the shot instead of worry about marking the lens body, and I will put the lens down wherever. Luckily, not being a pro shooter, I only use my gears a few times per week when I am not on a photo expedition. If I shoot day-in and day-out for days like when I am in Bosque del Apache or Yellowstone NP, there will definitely be a lot more 'damage' to my equipment. I did notice a few more markings on my cameras and lenses after coming back from trips like that. But, those marking are only on the bodies and I am still very careful about NOT to cause damage to the glasses.
Doug Quance wrote:
I look at lenses like I do cars. If the visible condition is good, i.e. the body, paint and interior have been cared for - logic dictates that the owner cared for the motor, as well.
If it's beat up, chances are the oil hasn't been changed with any regularity, and normal maintenance of what I can't see has probably been ignored.
Others may differ in their assessment.
If it looks abused, it probably has been.
I agree with Doug as long as what you are talking about is buying lenses on eBay or in some other forum where you can not actually put them on your camera and test them. However, my local pro photo store, Roberts, takes a lot of newspaper trades. I bought a 12-24 Nikkor from the Detroit Free Press from them which had a crack and chip in the front filter screws. It also had a couple of dings on the body of the lens. I was skeptical, but they let me take it out and put it through its paces. It actually made better pictures than any of the other 3 samples, including new that I had tried. It was amazingly cheap because it scared everyone, but I bought it and love it.
My 70-200 looks a lot worse than that, . It really doesn't matter how well the glass looks from the outside, tons of pros I work with shoot with the most beaten up equipment and produce magnificient pictures. So long the glass isn't cracked it'll be capable of making as good pictures as the day it was made.
You could also have a mint-condition lens that was used by a trigger-happy hobbiest who takes snapshots of everything that moves.
Like someone said, it's almost impossible to judge how much wear/tear a lens has been through. You either take your chances or you buy new with a warranty. Besides, think of all the L lenses attached to 1DIIs on the sidelines of pro sporting events. I bet that gives USM a lot more of a workout than a photojournalist's occasional shots.
I would have to agree that if you want good glass, and what you care about is the image, often the well used lens can be a bargain. I haven't seen many they lost the ability to work, unless due to manufactures defects or like dropping the lens, as I have done. I have equipment that is shiny surfaces from use and scratches but this does not detract from the job it is supposed to do. I have to admit that the older lenses, like a nice Ektar from the 50's, is easier to clean and maintain but I still don't have any lenses, except as mention in a dropped one, that have quite even due to heavy use or lost resolution.
I too am often amazed at the external condition of some of these lenses, though it's easy as a hobbiest to criticize. If the lenses were used by working professionals in harsh environments (jungles, deserts, rock climbing, etc), they're going to get nicked every so often. After buying my 14-year-old 80-200L, which is as close to mint as can be, I don't think I've seen a photo of another one that doesn't look like it's been attacked by hungry predators. I know that the lense was for many years the photojournalist's best friend, so it explains that somewhat, but still.
I've purchased a 300mm f4 lens for $400. Yes, it has scratches and paint removed, but still functions and takes great photos. I also have an old Pentax 6x7 camera that I purchased for less than $200, and it also works as new. As long as you have a way to return the lens if it did not live up to your expectations, I would not hesitate in going after these "beat up" lenses.
). When you do that, it seems no matter how hard you try, the bodies swing around and bash into each other. I think I could make good money selling a special beltpack that kept one body on each side of you without letting them swing around but still giving them enough room to bring to eye level for shooting.
. It really doesn't matter how well the glass looks from the outside, tons of pros I work with shoot with the most beaten up equipment and produce magnificient pictures. So long the glass isn't cracked it'll be capable of making as good pictures as the day it was made.