was this salesmen right?

[OceanRider]

Last night, I went to HENRY'S photo up here in Canada to pick up a 50mm 1.8 They had two, one used, one new. They were both priced at 119.00 CAD.

The used one had a small piece of dust visible deep inside the lens when viewed from the side that connects to the camera. It was not on surface.

The salesmen stated that one would never see the dust on images or nore would it cause any trouble--I could have got this one for discount.

Is this true?

Joel

[gasrocks]

You may never see an obvious "speck" in any pix but there will be a loss of resolution. How did it get inside? Why buy a lens that seems not to be sealed well - more might get in and you'll have trouble selling it later.

[peacock]

Why would you pay the same price for a used one with dust when they had a new one for the same price:confused:

was the used one a mk 1 version ?

[Snapman]

Why would you pay the same price for a used one with dust when they had a new one for the same price:confused:

was the used one a mk 1 version ?
I think Joel said he could have got the faulty lens at a discount price.

I would hesitate though in case I ever wanted to sell the lens.

[peacock]

I think Joel said he could have got the faulty lens at a discount price.

I would hesitate though in case I ever wanted to sell the lens.

yea I read that , my mind just boggled at the thought of a shop initially offering a new lens for the same price as used with or without the dust:confused:

[BugEyes]

It would take more than a small dust particle to make the optics detriorate enough to affect the pictures. But I wouldn't have bought it unless the discont wa substantial and I was able to test it first.

[soupdragon]

If it's the metal mount one it's well worth the money.

[buze]

Heh. Metal mount ? Why ? Do you plan to mount/unmount it several times a day for the next few years, where the wear could actualy start to show ?

That 50mm mk1 legend is really a lot of b/s. Buying a lens that is not only out of warantee but also *can't be repaired by Canon anymore* for MORE money than a *new lens* with a 1 year guarantee is really a wierd concept. If it was a lot better, OR a lot cheaper....

[ron chappel]

That amount of dust has no effect effect at all on the photo's but it will have an effect on resale value.

[buze]

Visible dust is the not a problem; *invisible* dust is; just use a good flashlight at the back of the lens and look from the front, sometine a "crystal clear" lens will start talking about polution, and it's previous heavy smoking owner.

I know for a fact -- after taking apart about 30 lens now, and seeing a few examples of that -- that nearly invisible dust coating will degrade the optics *massively* especialy wide open. It creates diffraction and just puts optical performance down the tube..

So, speak softly, but carry a flashlight ;-)

[blackviolet]

i question the whole 'metal mount' statement. i think the plastic mounts are pretty darn resilient. in fact, you could almost argue that this means less wear on the body itself, yeah? i mean the lens itself, at that price, is almost disposable, but i have felt the quality is anything but... and you'd still be stuck with metal mount and 5 blades on the mk1.

i've been telling myself that i need to get a 1.4, but i've been very happy with the nifty piece of plastic. i've yet to take a picture on the 1.8 that screams 'if only i had the 1.4'. now i have many pictures that scream 'if only i had a 200 1.8'

[soupdragon]

The metal mount lens (for want of a better expression) was, and still is of better quality than the plastic mount one.
It's not just a matter of the mount being plastic the whole thing is cheap.
There are threads on this forum already discussing the plastic ones falling apart.
The new 50 1.8 I am led to believe is only produced as an alternative to the kit lens which is another optic of dubious quality.
Speaking from experience I had, and promptly returned a new 50 after the initial test shots. And no, this was not a gut reaction, I did a direct comparison between my neighbours' old metal mount lens and the new.
The only thing better about the new was the speed of auto focus.

[soupdragon]

Heh. Metal mount ? Why ? Do you plan to mount/unmount it several times a day for the next few years, where the wear could actualy start to show ?

That 50mm mk1 legend is really a lot of b/s. Buying a lens that is not only out of warantee but also *can't be repaired by Canon anymore* for MORE money than a *new lens* with a 1 year guarantee is really a wierd concept. If it was a lot better, OR a lot cheaper....

It's not a question of wear it is one of optical/general quality.
I notice the new 50 1.8 does not show up in your armoury, so it's good enough for others but not you.

[blackviolet]

The new 50 1.8 I am led to believe is only produced as an alternative to the kit lens which is another optic of dubious quality.

the 50mm 1.8 mk2 has been around since the early 90's - at least 10 years before the 'kit lens'.

optical quality is also questionable and also subjective. the elements are supposedly the same in both builds. given that the mark ones haven't been made for many, many years, they could be subject to fungus or even a buildup film, if they haven't been cleaned. and things can just come loose with use/storage/etc.

now build quality is certainly a valid arguement. Not only are they made of plastic, they are generally also made outside of the japanese plants, where the mark ones were generally manufactured. so tolerances, etc. (which could potentially support your optical quality statement. i'm not sure where they are grinding the lenses, so that could also potentially be a difference.

soupdragon, please don't feel this a personal attack - it's not meant to be at all so i hope they don't come across as one. i'm just stating my opinions and yours are every bit as valid.

[whchan]

Any major manufactors (in US) have plans in developing countries, for the obvious reason of cost saving. All tolerances and product specs are indentical no matter where the manufactory plans are. Something made in Japan or USA does not have any indication of product quality for global large companies. I knowledge that he quality control of some small companies do suffer for out of shore manufactory plans. Canon should not have this problem. I have been working as a process engineer for 2 dow companies and have visited many hub sites all over the world.