Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Marketplace & Market Info Market Watch 
Thread started 27 May 2011 (Friday) 23:39
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

What Would You Do?

 
SimplyShane
Senior Member
Avatar
684 posts
Joined Oct 2010
     
May 27, 2011 23:39 |  #1
bannedPermanent ban

A little background:

I bought a Sigma 17-70 macro lens from an Ebay seller that exhibits consistent back-focus at 17mm-19mm when used fairly close to any given subject.
Even under good lighting conditions with a subject high in contrast, the lens will consistently fail to find focus at apertures as high as f/8.0. Multiple tests have confirmed this. Unfortunately, the seller refuses to believe me and so now I have filed a case against him.

However, when writing up my case, I made two big mistakes:

1. I safely assumed that any range between 17-24mm would exhibit back-focus, but upon further testing, I found this to be untrue.
Bizarrely enough, the lens will only back-focus right at the 17-19mm range, with 17mm exhibiting the most obvious problems.

2. At the time I wrote the case, I had only tested the lens at an aperture of f/2.8. (Wide-Open) Thus, I claimed that only larger apertures in conjunction with the proper focal length would make the issue appear. This is also not true.
The lens actually does continue to back-focus all the way up to f/8.0, as stated previously.

So now I ask:: What am I to do about this? One of these errors is actually "in my favor" so-to-speak, as the inability to focus properly manifests at apertures much higher than originally anticipated.

On the other hand, my claim of the lens backfocusing close to the 24mm range is an exaggeration.

What would be the honest thing to do here? Do I just let Ebay continue to review the case and let them in on my recent discoveries AFTER they contact me? Or do I contact the seller and admit my miscalculation *now?*

Thoughts?


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/bengford (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
solara
Senior Member
620 posts
Joined Feb 2010
     
May 27, 2011 23:57 |  #2

It's back-focusing on your camera, but may have been perfectly fine on the seller's camera.
I don't think you have a legitimate claim against the seller since even buying a new lens, you can have a mismatch of tolerances that are within manufacturer's specifications. Your camera body may be within spec, and the lens may be within spec, but the combination of the two may be enough so that it back-focuses.


5D III, 7D | 17-55 f/2.8 | 16-35 f/4 | 24-105 f/4 | 85 f/1.8 | 135 f/2 | 70-200 f/4 IS | 580EX II | YN-560 | Manfrotto 190XPROB+498RC2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MOkoFOko
nut impotent and avoiding Geoff
Avatar
19,889 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Michigan, home of the Zombie plague
     
May 28, 2011 00:21 |  #3

Per ebays rules, as a buyer you are afforded plenty of rights. If you want to return something, you have the right to return it, period. It doesn't matter if they say "as is, no returns"--if you file a dispute requesting a return, you will always be granted a return by Ebays dispute department.

If you're not happy (and you obviously aren't), proceed with the dispute, and send it back, with tracking and insurance. You will get your money back. If for some very strange reason you run into any issues, file a credit card dispute--the tracking number is all you need to guarantee that you win your claim.


My Gearlist

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MOkoFOko
nut impotent and avoiding Geoff
Avatar
19,889 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Michigan, home of the Zombie plague
     
May 28, 2011 00:22 |  #4

solara wrote in post #12492598 (external link)
It's back-focusing on your camera, but may have been perfectly fine on the seller's camera.
I don't think you have a legitimate claim against the seller since even buying a new lens, you can have a mismatch of tolerances that are within manufacturer's specifications. Your camera body may be within spec, and the lens may be within spec, but the combination of the two may be enough so that it back-focuses.

Wrong, wrong wrong. This is ebay--it doesn't matter whether you're making things up--the buyer is always right. You don't even need to specify a reason for the return--simply say you aren't satisfied. As an ebay seller, I know very well that it is pointless to fight a return request. Fighting it will only guarantee you receive negative feedback in the end. The worst a seller can do to you is leave neutral feedback.


My Gearlist

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
solara
Senior Member
620 posts
Joined Feb 2010
     
May 28, 2011 02:18 |  #5

MOkoFOko wrote in post #12492704 (external link)
Wrong, wrong wrong. This is ebay--it doesn't matter whether you're making things up--the buyer is always right. You don't even need to specify a reason for the return--simply say you aren't satisfied. As an ebay seller, I know very well that it is pointless to fight a return request. Fighting it will only guarantee you receive negative feedback in the end. The worst a seller can do to you is leave neutral feedback.

I never said he would not win the dispute. I just said it was not legitimate - if he were claiming that the seller was lying about the condition of the lens - as implied by the post. Like I said earlier, the lens may have worked perfectly with the seller's camera body, but when combined with the OP's body, the range of tolerances for both body and lens resulted in a combination that is out of tolerance, resulting in a back-focus.

But yeah, if you want to roll the dice and get another one that may act the same way, then return it. But don't assume the seller was lying to you.


5D III, 7D | 17-55 f/2.8 | 16-35 f/4 | 24-105 f/4 | 85 f/1.8 | 135 f/2 | 70-200 f/4 IS | 580EX II | YN-560 | Manfrotto 190XPROB+498RC2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
K6AZ
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,250 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 9
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Richmond VA USA
     
May 28, 2011 03:05 |  #6

MOkoFOko wrote in post #12492704 (external link)
Wrong, wrong wrong. This is ebay--it doesn't matter whether you're making things up--the buyer is always right. You don't even need to specify a reason for the return--simply say you aren't satisfied. As an ebay seller, I know very well that it is pointless to fight a return request. Fighting it will only guarantee you receive negative feedback in the end. The worst a seller can do to you is leave neutral feedback.

Interesting considering sellers cannot leave neutral feedback for buyers.

I've won a couple of disputes where the buyer simply said he wasn't happy with the item. The buyer needs to specifically charge not as described.


Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
richierich1212
Goldmember
Avatar
1,628 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Vallejo, California (SF Bay Area)
     
May 28, 2011 03:58 |  #7

solara wrote in post #12492598 (external link)
It's back-focusing on your camera, but may have been perfectly fine on the seller's camera.

Shane's had other threads on this eBay transaction. He actually won an auction for a XSi + Sigma 17-70 together. So he's got a real good case against the seller here.


Gearlist ยท Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JustinRageth
Senior Member
Avatar
636 posts
Joined Dec 2010
Location: SE Wisconsin
     
May 28, 2011 09:25 |  #8

Is this the one where he opened a case and received a partial refund for like $20?


T4i Gripped, Sigma 17-70mm, 70-200 f/4L, 50mm 1.8
Panasonic TZ5
Flicker (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SimplyShane
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
684 posts
Joined Oct 2010
     
May 30, 2011 01:11 |  #9
bannedPermanent ban

solara wrote in post #12493095 (external link)
I never said he would not win the dispute. I just said it was not legitimate - if he were claiming that the seller was lying about the condition of the lens - as implied by the post. Like I said earlier, the lens may have worked perfectly with the seller's camera body, but when combined with the OP's body, the range of tolerances for both body and lens resulted in a combination that is out of tolerance, resulting in a back-focus.

But yeah, if you want to roll the dice and get another one that may act the same way, then return it. But don't assume the seller was lying to you.

Incorrect.
I purchased an XSi body together with said lens from the original seller.

(Yes, I should have said that in my first post, so my apologies to you.)


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/bengford (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SimplyShane
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
684 posts
Joined Oct 2010
     
May 30, 2011 01:13 |  #10
bannedPermanent ban

JustinRageth wrote in post #12493862 (external link)
Is this the one where he opened a case and received a partial refund for like $20?

Yes. That was the shutter count issue.

Now I've uncovered something far more serious. :( (And now the seller is just NOT having it. Ebay is deciding the case as we speak.)


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/bengford (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SimplyShane
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
684 posts
Joined Oct 2010
     
May 30, 2011 01:14 |  #11
bannedPermanent ban

richierich1212 wrote in post #12493271 (external link)
Shane's had other threads on this eBay transaction. He actually won an auction for a XSi + Sigma 17-70 together. So he's got a real good case against the seller here.

This has all been very CRAZY.

(Thankfully though there is good news: Your lens has been working fine. ;) )


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/bengford (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HoosierJoe
Goldmember
Avatar
2,575 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 32
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Central Indiana
     
Jun 01, 2011 20:09 |  #12

I got burned on an ebay lens and said never again. Some people on ebay will say anything in thier description. I have far more luck buying used from this site.

New I always go with a reputable store off ebay.



Ain't nothin but a thing.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kelleystar27
Member
195 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: OR
     
Jun 01, 2011 20:20 |  #13

HoosierJoe wrote in post #12518881 (external link)
I got burned on an ebay lens and said never again. Some people on ebay will say anything in thier description. I have far more luck buying used from this site.

New I always go with a reputable store off ebay.

Same here...lens had really bad fugus! Returned it and the guy said I broke it. That really upset me! Of course, after the fact I looked and saw he had some neg's re: items not as described (lesson learned).
I just recently bought a used 85 1.8 and it looks GREAT except it smelled REALLY strongly of smoke. I'm airing it out & keeping it though..it's getting less noticeable although I don't think it'll ever go away. No biggie but I consider it a gamble when buying off ebay.


Kelley
www.facebook.com/charm​edcapturesphotography.​com (external link)
40D, 5D,5D II, 28-75 2.8, 85 1.8, 200 2.8L, 300 2.8L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HoosierJoe
Goldmember
Avatar
2,575 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 32
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Central Indiana
     
Jun 02, 2011 11:02 |  #14

kelleystar27 wrote in post #12518943 (external link)
Same here...lens had really bad fugus! Returned it and the guy said I broke it. That really upset me! Of course, after the fact I looked and saw he had some neg's re: items not as described (lesson learned).
I just recently bought a used 85 1.8 and it looks GREAT except it smelled REALLY strongly of smoke. I'm airing it out & keeping it though..it's getting less noticeable although I don't think it'll ever go away. No biggie but I consider it a gamble when buying off ebay.

I've been an ebay member for quite a long time. It didn't used to be the way it is now. I use it for hard to find items sometimes (non photo items). I never purchase anything very pricey.



Ain't nothin but a thing.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SimplyShane
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
684 posts
Joined Oct 2010
     
Jun 02, 2011 23:15 |  #15
bannedPermanent ban

Update:: Still no reply from Ebay and it has been over 72 hours. I'm calling them tomorrow...

This is ridiculous.


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/bengford (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

892 views & 0 likes for this thread
What Would You Do?
FORUMS Marketplace & Market Info Market Watch 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Bluewonder310
2210 guests, 319 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.