Should I go ugly?

EdColorado · Mar 6, 2009

A question for those of you who deal with KEH...

I like KEH and have ordered a number of things from them and have always been very pleased with what I receive. I have never though ordered anything rated as UG (ugly). The bargain equipment I have received has always been very clean, what I would call excellent. How about ugly though? Anyone have experience with what the ugly condition really is? I'm considering a lens they have but I'm not sure.

Thanks a lot,

Ed

keithwms · Mar 6, 2009

With their return policy, what's to lose, except some shopping costs?

ghost · Mar 6, 2009

These types of descriptions are very subjective, but my one experience with them I though there ratings were very conservative.

This thread title reminded me of a saying from college....

erikg · Mar 6, 2009

Ugly can be pretty ugly, and there isn't a category below it. But if you don't mind brassing, dents, dings, missing paint, scratches etc, then go for it. Sometimes that kind of condition is just what I'm looking for.

I thought this thread was about shaving a beard or something...

BobNewYork · Mar 6, 2009

I'm ugly - but I still work! Depends if you want eye candy or a piece of equipment that works for you. If it does the job it's not in the least bit ugly. Besides - honorable scars beat "pristine poser" anytime!!

Nicholas Lindan · Mar 6, 2009

I have ordered ugly on accessories: one was hard to tell from new and the other had a small ding. That may have been an exception, but KEH sometimes sells on ebay and the items they sell as UG look awfully good. I emailed them asking if the picture was of the actual item, they said it was, but I didn't get it - I really don't need yet another F3, though for $135 'buy it now'...

david b · Mar 6, 2009

I ordered a Hasselblad lens that was marked as bargain.

When it arrived, it looked as new. I could not find a single issue with it.
I shined a flash light through it and it was perfect. The barrel did not have a single mark on it.

Who knows? Give it a shot

mudman · Mar 6, 2009

let us know how it goes.

John Koehrer · Mar 6, 2009

Two bag ugly or flag ugly?

Ponysoldier · Mar 6, 2009

I have purchased "ugly" from KEH and found it to be just that... and I do mean U-G-L-Y but - everything worked and I have no complaints (and yes, John - flag ugly)!

mikebarger · Mar 6, 2009

On a whim I had ordered a Hassy 40mm ugly, looked like it had been on the extra dry cycle of a clothes dryer. It did work, but I sent it back. Just didn't know how much life was left, and there were a few more marks on the glass than I like.

Mike

MikeSeb · Mar 6, 2009

John Koehrer said:
... or flag ugly?

I hesitate to ask....

epatsellis · Mar 6, 2009

It's ok mike, you're likely not old enough to know the reference.

EdColorado · Mar 7, 2009

Well I'm going for it. I ordered a 360mm for my RB67, graded as ugly. We'll see what happens. The rest of my RB gear is pretty rough, much nastier than any of the bargain grade stuff I've gotten from KEH so perhaps that 360 will feel right at home. Cant complain much for $99 with full return rights. I also grabbed a bargain grade 150mm soft focus (with the discs). Got both the #1 and #2 extension tubes too...My bank account hates KEH, but I personally like this shopping for camera gear at home at 10:45pm.
Once it all gets here I'll post some comments about the 360, perhaps some pictures too.

Ed

AmandaTom · Mar 7, 2009

I don't order UG grade for lenses as the description says that their function may be affected--I don't want to take that chance with glass. I have, however, bought a Hasselblad body and a couple other things with that grade and have been pleased. The body had some of the leatherette coming up which warranted the grade (according to keh--I just hit it with some glue).

Edwardv · Mar 7, 2009

I order a Bronica 645 lens 100-220 that was rated ugly. When I received it, it was like new. I called KEH to make sure the correct lens was sent. Their reply, "yes it was and reminded that I had some time to return the lens if I was not happy." Well I kept it because it was a beauty and everything worked perfectly.

Good luck.

EdColorado · Mar 7, 2009

I'm hoping for one like you got Edwardv. Cosmetics I'm not too worried about, but the glass...ya gotta have good glass.

epatsellis · Mar 7, 2009

Really? Are you sure?

I know most feel it's of critical importance, but perhaps you can explain how this lens:

(and a Componon, no less, not even a Symmar) on 8x10 can make images that are razor sharp:

yes I know about the vignetting, it was hard enough composing in very dim light, exposure was in the 20-30 second range. There's a resounding belief that if your lens isn't absolutely perfect, that it's useless. While I'd love to have everybody believe that, as it would cost me far less to buy odds and ends, it's not always true. Granted, at 10x, which in this case would put us at a 80x100 inch print, you would likely see some effect, I'd imagine.

EdColorado · Mar 7, 2009

What the heck is that, a squashed fly? Trust me, if the lens shows up with some marks on the glass I'll test it before sending it back. I've seen some pretty bad lenses make some fine pictures, but that "thing" on yours is right up there with the worse of them!

Phormula · Mar 7, 2009

I bought and used a Nikon 28-85 mm for many years, then while cleaning it I noted there was a small dead spider inside. I thought about having it cleaned, then I decided to keep shooting. The lens was KIA (felt from height in Instanbul) many years later... I bought a 28-70 as a replacement and out of curiosity I took a picture identical to one I took with the 28-85. The spider made no difference in the comparison.

Anyway, an ugly lens gives exactly the same picture of a mint one, as long as the uglyness is in the outside. I bought an ugly Sigma 400 mm for 30$, found that the glass was OK, it was only heavily scratched in the barrel. Check the glass, it is the only thing that will make the difference.

epatsellis · Mar 7, 2009

nope, huge chunk out of the front element, some black paint to fill it in and it was good to go.

keithwms · Mar 8, 2009

That reminds me of an ugly rb lens that I promised to send to Erie (sorry!)....

I bought an "ugly" mamiya rb lens for purposes of excising the leaf shutter. The thing arrived and I thought, wait, this thing is actually quite good, better than some of the other lenses that I use! But nevertheless I really wanted to get at that leaf shutter and it's in my nature to take things apart. So I pulled out the toolkit and attempted to unscrew the rear element... unfortunately the screw heads were long gone, somebody else must have had similar ill intent toward this particular lens.

I decided to appply the logic of particle physics and simply destroy the lens in order to determine its inner secrets. So I pulled out the hammer and thwacked the front element as hard as I could. Nothing but a small chip. Thwacked it again, as hard as I could, nothing. I then dropped the lens from head height onto cement, not much happened except the cement was chipped. Now after further abuse (throwing, hammering, jumping upon) I did manage to chip up the rear element pretty well. But still she never yielded and the leaf shutter is still in there, silently mocking me. The lens is held together by gluons. (That's why you never got the lens, Erie; I still hold out the hope that one day I will defeat this lens)

I think I will propose to the US military that we lob RB lenses at our enemies rather than depleted uranium. Probably cheaper and less scary sounding when described in the media.

EdColorado · Mar 12, 2009

Ugly buy, the result

Well the UPS guy showed up today with my KEH graded ugly, Mamiya Sekor 360mm f6.3 lens. I am to say the least pleased with what I got. A couple of small marks on the outside of the lens barrel but nothing bad at all, you pretty much have to search them out. The shutter sounds good (I'll try to shoot some test shots tomorrow), speed and aperture rings feel excellent. The glass, well the glass is the crux of the matter isn't it? The glass looks really really nice. Overall its very clean with just a little dust inside, but nothing that will hurt anything. Why is it an ugly lens you ask. Well thats a good question but I'm guessing its due to the number engraved on the back side of the mount and maybe the sticky labels on the barrel.
Now of course I figure I just got lucky, the next ugly grade lens I buy might look like it lost a battle with a small tank but this time I think I did OK!

Kino · Mar 12, 2009

epatsellis said:
Really? Are you sure?

I know most feel it's of critical importance, but perhaps you can explain how this lens (snip)

WOW!

That's amazing! Guess I'll stop avoiding the Graflex Optar 135mm lens I have on a ragged Speed Graphic (looks like it was cleaned with a brillo pad on a regular basis) and waste a few sheets on it!

Might have a "custom diffusion" lens and not know it!

epatsellis · Mar 13, 2009

Ed,

Just got my ugly, as-is RB 180C, damned if I can see anything wrong with it, looks better than the one I have now. Decisions, decisions. Now the Nikon 20 3.5 has filter ring dents, oil on the aperture blades and is in need of some TLC, though the images with the D#$%# camera look fantastic.

Should I go ugly?

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency