I was sold a Minolta 28mm F2 AF lens and the front glass element is scratched. Should I return it or just get a partial refund?

[manfrominternet]

Hi all,

So this past Sunday, I was sold a Minolta 28mm F2 AF (new style) lens that I was really excited to use with my Minolta Maxxum/Dynax 7 35mm film camera. I originally purchased it off of eBay via auction from a photographer who was local. Anyway, I won the auction and asked the seller if I could just pick up the lens to avoid shipping fees and he agreed. He then later said that he could just take the listing off eBay to further save me some tax money and him any eBay fees, thus costing me a grand total of $185 flat. Mind you, this latest edition of this 28mm F2 AF Minolta lens routinely sells for $250 and above for just the lens alone. This lens came with the original lens hood, lens storage box, original paperwork, and even the original box. That said, I thought this was a terrific deal.

I met the seller the next day at a local Starbucks, checked out the lens and asked questions about it. The lens looked immaculate, but the lighting inside the Starbucks was pretty dim. I saw what I thought were some cleaning residue/smudge marks on the front lens element but didn't think much of it... until I got home and started to clean the lens as I would normally do. I shone my iPhone light onto the front lens element and was horrified to find a bunch of long fine scratches! It's my understanding that the rear lens element is what really counts, but still, I bought a prime lens specifically because I wanted maximum sharpness.

Anyway, I texted the seller and he gave me two offers: 1.) I could return the lens to him for a full refund or 2.) I could keep the lens for a partial refund of my choosing.

We agreed that I would use the lens for the week, see how I felt about it, and get back to him this weekend. That all said, I wanted to ask all you lens experts what you think:
1.) Should I just return the lens for a full refund? Or...
2.) Should I keep the lens and get a partial refund? (Considering that I bought this lens for $185, how much of a partial refund would sound fair to you guys?)

I don't think this can possibly be repaired. Let me know what you guys think. Much appreciated, as always.

 

[Paul Howell]

If it was me I would get a full refund and buy a clean example, with a wide, even a moderate wide like a 28mm scratches on the front element will have a tendency to show more depending on the angle of the lighting. If you have a Sony A mount DSLR you can check.

 

[cramej]

$150 is about the going rate (on ebay) for a f2 lens with issues so it's up to you how OK you are with it. That quantity of scratches could induce some extra flare. Can you feel the scratches with your fingernail? Fill them with black ink and start shooting if you don't feel the need for a pristine lens.

 

[SteveInConverse]

Try it and see if the scratches are even visible in images. I know it looks like shite, but at the end of the day, it's the images that count. Once satisfied, get a partial refund you think is fair.

 

[xkaes]

With wide-angles lenses and oblique lighting and you can end up with problems. Since it's not a cheap lens, I'd return it. Even if you could buy it for $50, I wouldn't use it.

If it were one small scratch on a long lens, that would be different.

 

[ic-racer]

I have never had a photograph destroyed by a scratched coating. But maybe the glass is scratched? That just might show at a small aperture on a 28mm. Of course if you bought it to make blurry pictures at f2, then it will be fine. I'd probably send it back and keep looking.

 

[Huss]

Return it. And get one in decent shape. One thing you may want to consider is if you ever try to sell that lens, you'll have hard time unless you sell it cheap.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Save the heartache and worrying. Return the lens and the next one will be much better. Then you can forget this problem and enjoy taking photographs.

 

[neilt3]

With a wide angle lens in that condition ( especially a dearer one like that , I'd give it back .
I've a few telephoto lenses I've bought cheap as they had a tiny single scratch which I filled in with India ink for peice of mind.
I can imagine taking a picture of a nice sunset it would flair like mad .

Incidentally, I've bought a good copy of the original version of this lens last week for £90 . That's about $90 .
I wouldn't pay half if that fir a badly marked one .
Mines very good condition, works well , nice images . A lit cheaper .
Hold out for one in good condition.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi all,

So this past Sunday, I was sold a Minolta 28mm F2 AF (new style) lens that I was really excited to use with my Minolta Maxxum/Dynax 7 35mm film camera. I originally purchased it off of eBay via auction from a photographer who was local. Anyway, I won the auction and asked the seller if I could just pick up the lens to avoid shipping fees and he agreed. He then later said that he could just take the listing off eBay to further save me some tax money and him any eBay fees, thus costing me a grand total of $185 flat. Mind you, this latest edition of this 28mm F2 AF Minolta lens routinely sells for $250 and above for just the lens alone. This lens came with the original lens hood, lens storage box, original paperwork, and even the original box. That said, I thought this was a terrific deal.

I met the seller the next day at a local Starbucks, checked out the lens and asked questions about it. The lens looked immaculate, but the lighting inside the Starbucks was pretty dim. I saw what I thought were some cleaning residue/smudge marks on the front lens element but didn't think much of it... until I got home and started to clean the lens as I would normally do. I shone my iPhone light onto the front lens element and was horrified to find a bunch of long fine scratches! It's my understanding that the rear lens element is what really counts, but still, I bought a prime lens specifically because I wanted maximum sharpness.

Anyway, I texted the seller and he gave me two offers: 1.) I could return the lens to him for a full refund or 2.) I could keep the lens for a partial refund of my choosing.

We agreed that I would use the lens for the week, see how I felt about it, and get back to him this weekend. That all said, I wanted to ask all you lens experts what you think:
1.) Should I just return the lens for a full refund? Or...
2.) Should I keep the lens and get a partial refund? (Considering that I bought this lens for $185, how much of a partial refund would sound fair to you guys?)

I don't think this can possibly be repaired. Let me know what you guys think. Much appreciated, as always.
View attachment 327764

You saw the lens and bought it from a very flexible seller it seems. Keep the lens for a 0% refund. lucky You.

 

[guangong]

Years ago I bought a 28mm Nikon lens with a deep scratch across front element that still produces fine results, but as for multiple scratches or so called cleaning marks, they can degrade the image. I would return the lens.

 

[neilt3]

You saw the lens and bought it from a very flexible seller it seems. Keep the lens for a 0% refund. lucky You.

It has to be said that it was a very honest seller the OP bought it from .
He bought it off the listing photos on eBay .
They then both agreed to scrub eBay and PayPal charges by doing a private sale in a cafe .
After inspecting the goods , the OP was happy with its condition and paid up , then left .
After then looking again in daylight it was decided it was faulty and contacted the seller .

The seller is under no obligation to take it back or give a partial refund as apart from it being a private sale , it was inspected before money changed hands .

It's not like it was a second hand car that broke down two miles down the road due to an unseen fault .

So fair play to the seller for agreeing to see the OP right rather than telling him to go spin !

 

[xkaes]

It seems to me that it was exactly "like it was a second hand car that broke down two miles down the road due to an unseen fault ".

The seller had to have known about the fault, and failed to point it out. Honest?

 

[Rolleiflexible]

You saw the lens and bought it from a very flexible seller it seems. Keep the lens for a 0% refund. lucky You.

I'm with Ralph on this one. The scratches will not affect the photographs. You inspected the lens before committing to it. Keep it.

The only effect of the scratches will be to diminish resale value to collectors. You will not see a difference in your photographs. Scratches to rear elements can be a cause for concern. But you have to do some truly horrendous things to a front or interior element before seeing the results. See, e.g.,

Does a Dirty Lens Affect Image Quality? Fungus, Scratches, Haze & More!

Let’s set the record straight on dirty lenses and how different defects affect the quality of your photos.

kamerastore.com

Don't worry about things that don't matter to the photographs you make.

 

[neilt3]

It seems to me that it was exactly "like it was a second hand car that broke down two miles down the road due to an unseen fault ".

The seller had to have known about the fault, and failed to point it out. Honest?

It's not as if something internally failed between buying it and getting home looking at it in better light .
So the used car analogy is correct .
If the AF failed the next day then that would be different .

If it was like that when the seller handed it over ( rather than the lens cap falling off while the buyer took it home and it getting damaged then ) , then it was plain to see when inspected .
I understand it was apparently low light in the cafe , in which case the torch function on a smartphone might have shown the damage up .
If it was already like that when the seller handed it over , then yes , you would have thought they already knew about it .
Who knows ? Maybe that's why the wanted to do a private sale with no comeback from PayPal or eBay ?

At least their straight enough to sort things out with the buyer , and the buyers learnt a lesson in buying used gear .

 

[Patrick Robert James]

If you plan on keeping it forever and it is an important lens to you then I'd get a refund and spend the money on a good copy. Those scratches will always bother you. If you aren't going to use it that much get a partial refund thinking of how much you could sell it for later.

 

[manfrominternet]

So it looks like the seller might be screwing me over. He's not responding to any of my texts or phone calls. Now I'm stuck with this damn lens that's scratched up to hell. I specifically bought this lens for critical landscape work. (I only buy primes for 35mm film.) I did a test with this lens and the flaring is pretty awful.

I had a strange feeling this would happen with this seller, yet I ignored the fire alarm in my head. In his eBay listing, the seller interestingly had a B+W Nano filter on the front of the lens; when I saw the lens in person I thought it was odd that he had taken the B+W Nano filter off, yet wasn't completely surprised. (Those filters are obviously expensive.) Then the seller told me that he NEVER uses these Minolta lenses he's selling. So one would wonder why in god's name he would have a new B+W Nano filter on the front of this lens in his eBay listing. A genuine red flag in retrospect. Anyway, he's a fellow photographer - a professional one at that - and seemed like a nice guy, so I foolishly trusted him thinking that one experienced professional photographer wouldn't screw over another, particularly a photo student like me. I further trusted him because he said to contact him this past Friday if I'd like a refund or if I'd like to keep the lens and get a partial refund. It's now Sunday...

It's just conjecture, but it looks like he may have done this purposefully to get some distance and now he's bailing on me, expecting me to forget the deal. I'm a young student who can't afford to be screwed over like this. Even at $185, I worked really hard just to afford this lens and waited a long while for it, specifically because it was the latest 1999 version of this Minolta lens (not the 1985 version that are commonly sold on eBay). If I were a multimillionaire, I obviously wouldn't care, but now I feel like I've been had. Now I have a horrible lens that I'll never use, never be able to sell, and $185 out of my pocket. A triple whammy. I can't believe it.

I'm sorry for venting. I'm just really despondent with him for screwing me over and me for not doing my due diligence as I'd always do. I would NEVER screw over anyone like this - photographer or not.

Does anyone know what I can do? Do I take the seller to small claims court?

Can these scratches possibly be fixed by someone?

 

[neilt3]

Sorry you got screwd . Give it a few more days in case there's a legitimate reason he hasn't responded, but don't hold your breath.
Regards what to do .
First of all you personally inspected the goods before handing over the cash , presumably testing it with the camera you ( should) took with you .
You were satisfied and paid up .
Either it was like that when you inspected it or it wasn't , in which case it could be argued in court that you caused the damage at home .
As already noted , there was no evidence of damage in the listing . Granted it was hidden by the filter that you also bought .
So where was that , and the the value of that get taken off the previous agreed sale price ?

Unless the seller was a trader , you won't find out his address off eBay .
eBay and PayPal can't / won't help you as the transaction was done outside of eBay , breaking their rules , and removing buyer protection .
If you did have an address , the best you could do is go around and take it up personally, possibly with a few of your mates ?

As you paid presumably cash , your bank can't help either .

List it as damaged on eBay , move it on and you move on .
Put it down to experience.
You can't get it repaired , as parts aren't available , the only way you'll fix it is to keep an eye open for a faulty one being sold for parts and swap the front lens element. Obviously make sure the fault isn't with the front element, scratches, fungus , haze etc .
Haze can be caused by the balsam or whatever that holds elements together, and so might not give you useable glass .
You'll be better just listing it honestly, getting rid of it and moving on .
Sorry .

 

[Kino]

Like many have said, you were there, you inspected it and you purchased it with cash. Not knocking you, just own up to the fact that we all miss details when we get excited or rushed and don't do our due diligence.

It's a hard lesson to learn and one I have had to learn many a time, but I have found it doesn't do any good to obsess over it and beat yourself up or demonize the seller. Chalk it up to a learning experience. You'll certainly now be more observant when making an in person purchase with cash, right?

Anyway, as others have suggested, these scratches may not be as impactful as you think. Rustle up a suitable lens hood and a UV filter and go shoot a roll.

I have some pretty heavily scratched lenses that still perform very well despite the damage.

Give it a try and keep on moving forward.

Life's too short to grind your gears over things like this...

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

This might not be a consolation, but be thankful this lesson wasn't a car that cost $5000. Also, and I hope this doesn't sound mean. But you screwed eBay out of their commission. You and the seller played games. What goes around comes around. Karma. If you were honest in your dealings, you would have had eBay protection.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

This might not be a consolation, but be thankful this lesson wasn't a car that cost $5000. Also, and I hope this doesn't sound mean. But you screwed eBay out of their commission. You and the seller played games. What goes around comes around. Karma. If you were honest in your dealings, you would have had eBay protection.

Agreed. I am a lawyer and a photographer. Forget small claims court. The judge will say caveat emptor and deny your claim. You inspected the lens. You purchased it. It’s yours.

As for the flare, I would be surprised if it’s caused by the scratch. It’s a cheap lens. You get what you paid for. Be thankful it wasn’t a Summilux.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

It seems to me that it was exactly "like it was a second hand car that broke down two miles down the road due to an unseen fault ".

The seller had to have known about the fault, and failed to point it out. Honest?

Yes, he offered to take it back or a refund!

 

[neilt3]

Yes, he offered to take it back or a refund!

Except the seller now appears to be ignoring the OP .
Or might have just gone away for the weekend and is out of range of a phone signal .
I often go on holiday to the Yorkshire dales and the area I frequently go to has no phone signal or way to connect up to the internet.

Wait and see .....

 

[Rolleiflexible]

It's not like it was a second hand car that broke down two miles down the road due to an unseen fault .

More like buying a car with a dent in the bumper. Look: When you buy a lens, the only thing that matters is the glass. The scratches are right there on the front element. If you can’t be bothered to make even a cursory inspection for obvious issues, you can’t feel cheated afterward.

 

[rcphoto]

If only you had completed the sale through ebay you'd probably already have your money back. Lesson learned I hope.