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 Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 12 Dec 2013 (Thursday) 20:30
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

If you bought a lens on ebay

 
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,211 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2661
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Dec 13, 2013 19:16 |  #46

FlyFishingTN wrote in post #16525538 (external link)
Again, the seller and I have come to an agreement. He's a man of integrity and so am I. Neither of us are out to cheat anyone. There was a 14 day return policy. In the end the seller is the one who needs to be happy. This is especially so when your talking about lenses that cost what alot of people pay for a car.

as long as your happy...enjoy the lens...who knows maybe it was the very first 300f2.8 IS made :)


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
dansmail26
Senior Member
357 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Nov 2012
Location: Lockport, NY
     
Dec 13, 2013 19:16 |  #47

I think you should get a partial refund to what 14 year old lenses are selling for. When you go to sell it it will be a 14+ year old "used' lens, no one will believe it was "new" in 2013. If the seller doesn't agree, open a case.


7D mark ii, Canon 24-70 2.8 II, 70-200 f/4L non-is, Canon 10-18 efs, Canon 1.4x, Yongnuo 468 II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FlyFishingTN
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
297 posts
Joined Mar 2010
Location: TN
     
Dec 13, 2013 19:23 |  #48

So to fund this purchase I'm selling a few of my lenses. I have a 400 5.6 I've had for 5 years. I hardly ever used it and there is not a sign of use on it anywhere. It's mint. Should I sell it as "new other"?

I also have a sigma 120-300 2.8 OS that I bought brand new a few months ago. I've had on my camera less then 10 times. You couldn't tell it from a new one if you tried. Should I sell it as 'new other' also?

FTR, I'm selling both of them as used.


_______________
WWW.FlyFishingTN.Com (external link)
My Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KirkS518
Goldmember
Avatar
3,983 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Central Gulf Coast, Flori-duh
     
Dec 13, 2013 19:27 |  #49

Hogloff wrote in post #16525458 (external link)
It was classified as "new other". Op described it as basically flawless. Obviously the lens was mounted onto a camera...but most likely was never used in the field. No indication it was used so I don't understand your tirade. The seller never called it New.

Also I never seen where the seller said he hung onto the lens for 14 years. He could of purchased the lens recently from a store where high dollar items don't move very fast. You seem to jump to a lot of conclusions without fact.

My 'tirade' is more frustration with people that don't comprehend. (Not pointing at anyone in specific). By ebay's listing policies, the lens falls into the 'USED' category. Even you're own statement (in bold in my quote), which is an assumption, would disqualify it from being listed as New or New Other. A floor model is never used 'in the field', but it must be listed as used according to ebay.

I don't understand why this is so difficult for people to understand. I'm not debating whether or not the buyer got a great lens (he did), but it is not a New or New Other lens, by definition. Yes, it's nit-picking, but it is what it is. I have sold so many older lenses that were still in the box, looked like they were never touched, but they are Used lenses. Would KEH/Adorama/B&H or any reputable camera store ever list one of their used or even floor model lenses as New, no matter how good it looked? No. And neither should a private party. That's the only issue I have in this game. ;)


If steroids are illegal for athletes, should PS be illegal for models?
Digital - 50D, 20D IR Conv, 9 Lenses from 8mm to 300mm
Analog - Mamiya RB67 Pro-SD, Canon A-1, Nikon F4S, YashicaMat 124G, Rollei 35S, QL17 GIII, Zeiss Ikon Ikoflex 1st Version, and and entire room full of lenses and other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Dec 13, 2013 19:29 |  #50
bannedPermanent ban

FlyFishingTN wrote in post #16525559 (external link)
So to fund this purchase I'm selling a few of my lenses. I have a 400 5.6 I've had for 5 years. I hardly ever used it and there is not a sign of use on it anywhere. It's mint. Should I sell it as "new other"?

FTR, I wouldn't even consider doing that.

No, because you used the lens. The seller of the 300 2.8 did not use the lens. A big difference.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FlyFishingTN
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
297 posts
Joined Mar 2010
Location: TN
     
Dec 13, 2013 19:36 |  #51

How do I know a 15 year old lens was never used?


_______________
WWW.FlyFishingTN.Com (external link)
My Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Dec 13, 2013 20:01 |  #52
bannedPermanent ban

FlyFishingTN wrote in post #16525586 (external link)
How do I know a 15 year old lens was never used?

Does it look used? If not, then what is the difference? If you cannot tell if a camera was ever mounted on the lens, who cares?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RandyMN
Goldmember
3,131 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Aug 2005
     
Dec 13, 2013 20:08 |  #53

Is the price comparable with what you would get in a similar lens of the same quality?

If I was buying a lens I'd expect new to be new. Like new is same as new in condition but still not new. Overall I think calling it new could only be truthful if the box was still unopened and even then the seller should state new, never used and 15 years old.

Sometimes items improperly stored will still have issues even if never opened.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dansmail26
Senior Member
357 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Nov 2012
Location: Lockport, NY
     
Dec 14, 2013 09:20 |  #54

Hogloff wrote in post #16525617 (external link)
Does it look used? If not, then what is the difference? If you cannot tell if a camera was ever mounted on the lens, who cares?

Resale value! As soon as he bought it his 'new' lens became a 14 year old used lens.


The big thing is, what was the lens worth if he advertised it as a mint condition 14 year old lens vs. what you paid for it as a "new" lens? If there is enough of a difference you need to file a case with ebay asap no matter how nice the seller is, unless he agrees to negotiate a new price.


7D mark ii, Canon 24-70 2.8 II, 70-200 f/4L non-is, Canon 10-18 efs, Canon 1.4x, Yongnuo 468 II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shane ­ W
Senior Member
839 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Traverse City, Michigan
     
Dec 14, 2013 09:49 |  #55

As this thread continues, I think the OP surely was misled and duped into overpaying for a lens that was manufactured 14 years ago!

I have and still use my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L from the year it was released, 1993, and it still works and looks great! Let's say I sell you this lens and have described it as used but in "like new" without revealing the date code and you buy it for $1000.00 from me. What are you going to feel when you open the box and find this lens in it's original case which happens to be an old-school black leather-clad missile silo style case instead of the silver/grey nylon zippered case more current glass comes with? Your going to feel misled and want $200.00 back!


Shane W

70D | Sig 10-20 | EF-S 15-85 | EF 70-200 2.8L | Sig 150-500 | Viv 28 2.5 | Sig 30 | Tak 50 1.4 [COLOR=blue]| EF 100 2.8 Macro | 1.4x TC | Nodal Ninja 3 | Tripods | Some Flashes | My flickr  (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lovemyram4x4
Goldmember
Avatar
2,198 posts
Gallery: 97 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 57
Joined Mar 2013
Location: Temecula
     
Dec 14, 2013 12:03 |  #56

I assume the 93 is a typo, but I'd be more upset that I got lens that wasn't released until 95 but had a 93 date code.

I have no idea when Canon update the cases but are sure that even if you one 2001 prior to the release of the IS ver it would not also use the old style case? It seems like the big white primes all used the same hard case(went from black-grey) and lens cap(no print-print for lenses it fits) until the mkii's came out and I've only noticed the nylon 70-200 f2.8 on IS mki and mkii.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Dec 14, 2013 13:24 |  #57
bannedPermanent ban

Shane W wrote in post #16526585 (external link)
As this thread continues, I think the OP surely was misled and duped into overpaying for a lens that was manufactured 14 years ago!

I have and still use my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L from the year it was released, 1993, and it still works and looks great! Let's say I sell you this lens and have described it as used but in "like new" without revealing the date code and you buy it for $1000.00 from me. What are you going to feel when you open the box and find this lens in it's original case which happens to be an old-school black leather-clad missile silo style case instead of the silver/grey nylon zippered case more current glass comes with? Your going to feel misled and want $200.00 back!


Maybe so, but with any used transaction, the buyer should do all his homework prior to purchasing the lens. Let's say this lens you are talking about is 5 years old...should the seller need to tell you that? What about 3 years old. Where to you draw the limit? If the manufacture date is so important to you, then I would request the date code on the lens. If not, then the seller described the lens exactly as it is, used but in mint condition.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cerett
Senior Member
821 posts
Likes: 224
Joined Jun 2013
Location: Santa Ana, California
     
Dec 14, 2013 13:25 |  #58

Shane W wrote in post #16526585 (external link)
As this thread continues, I think the OP surely was misled and duped into overpaying for a lens that was manufactured 14 years ago!

I have and still use my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L from the year it was released, 1993, and it still works and looks great! Let's say I sell you this lens and have described it as used but in "like new" without revealing the date code and you buy it for $1000.00 from me. What are you going to feel when you open the box and find this lens in it's original case which happens to be an old-school black leather-clad missile silo style case instead of the silver/grey nylon zippered case more current glass comes with? Your going to feel misled and want $200.00 back!

If you called it a used lens in "like new" condition and, in fact, there were no apparent signs of wear, I think the buyer is not being duped. The date of manufacturer has nothing to do with the condition of lens. "Like new" is a common term used to describe an item in mint condition.


https://www.martinfeld​manphotography.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KirkS518
Goldmember
Avatar
3,983 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Central Gulf Coast, Flori-duh
     
Dec 14, 2013 13:32 |  #59

cerett wrote in post #16526992 (external link)
If you called it a used lens in "like new" condition and, in fact, there were no apparent signs of wear, I think the buyer is not being duped. The date of manufacturer has nothing to do with the condition of lens. "Like new" is a common term used to describe an item in mint condition.

Like New is a phrase ebay will flag the listing for.

New is like pregnancy - either you are, or you aren't. There really is no grey area when defining it.


If steroids are illegal for athletes, should PS be illegal for models?
Digital - 50D, 20D IR Conv, 9 Lenses from 8mm to 300mm
Analog - Mamiya RB67 Pro-SD, Canon A-1, Nikon F4S, YashicaMat 124G, Rollei 35S, QL17 GIII, Zeiss Ikon Ikoflex 1st Version, and and entire room full of lenses and other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Furlan
Senior Member
745 posts
Likes: 117
Joined Nov 2012
     
Dec 14, 2013 14:04 |  #60

KirkS518 wrote in post #16527011 (external link)
Like New is a phrase ebay will flag the listing for.

New is like pregnancy - either you are, or you aren't. There really is no grey area when defining it.

E-Bay will only flag the listing if "Like New" is used in the heading you may use like
new in the narrative.

A Item can be old and not considered new but it can also be unused and considered
new.

I think the seller was quite honest in his description after reviewing the listing. In
2008 B&H Photo was selling this lens for $4,100 so was this a bargain today at $4,200
I myself would have been looking for a much better deal.




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

6,103 views & 0 likes for this thread
If you bought a lens on ebay
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
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 Adams603
799 guests, 265 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.