Honest Question Here.

What is with a lot of people on this site who refuse to buy gear unless it looks perfect and pretty? I see far to many people on this site who just wont buy something cause it may have some paint loss on it or maybe some scratches that in no way affects the functionality of the item. I mean they are cameras used for capturing images. It's not like they are display pieces. I don't see the reasoning in this....

That is all.

Why does it matter to you? If people want their stuff in good condition, let them want it that way.

To some people external damage could imply internal damage since you have no way of knowing if there is internal damage. Perhaps those people do not want to just take the work of the seller since there is little recourse if something does go wrong.

Luke J. Photography wrote in post #13358802
What is with a lot of people on this site who refuse to buy gear unless it looks perfect and pretty? I see far to many people on this site who just wont buy something cause it may have some paint loss on it or maybe some scratches that in no way affects the functionality of the item. I mean they are cameras used for capturing images. It's not like they are display pieces. I don't see the reasoning in this....

That is all.

Yep, that's right. It's terrible that people choose to spend their money the way they want to.

The kind of external damage that would indicate internal damage is going to be pretty obvious... Think depressions, cracks, stars in the glass. Paint loss and hair scratches in glass are normal and totally inconsequential, unless your intended use is to post up images of your gear on forums for people to gush over.

Yeah, I think for a lot of folks it's more about the gear and not about actually doing anything with it.

But there's a flip side to that coin: Since they drive prices down on even slightly worn equipment, you can find bargains on things you intend to use, not just admire on a shelf.

I'd buy something with a few scuffs on it if the price reflected the fact that it's not perfect.... it's the people asking 80% of new price for something from the "scratch and dent" pile that I don't get...

A lot of the bigger lenses see a lot of rough use.. I've seen some 300's, 400's, and 500's in pretty sore shape.... for those, the starting price for me is about 60% of market value of a used one in good shape.... for 75-80% of new lens price, I might be tempted to buy a used copy in pristine shape... but I'd never spend that same cash on a lens with dents and chunks of paint missing....

Would you pay 80% of market value for a car with dents and scratches in it?

va_rider wrote in post #13358989
I'd buy something with a few scuffs on it if the price reflected the fact that it's not perfect.... it's the people asking 80% of new price for something from the "scratch and dent" pile that I don't get...

A lot of the bigger lenses see a lot of rough use.. I've seen some 300's, 400's, and 500's in pretty sore shape.... for those, the starting price for me is about 60% of market value of a used one in good shape.... for 75-80% of new lens price, I might be tempted to buy a used copy in pristine shape... but I'd never spend that same cash on a lens with dents and chunks of paint missing....

Would you pay 80% of market value for a car with dents and scratches in it?

Obviously if someone is asking the same price for their lens which has some cosmetic blemishes as a lens in LNIB condition I can see where someone wouldn't buy it over the better condition lens.

Hypothetically lets says someone is selling a XXX-XXXmm lens which sells used in perfect shape at $2000. But theirs is lets say priced at $1800 since it is missing some paint in a few places, but everything else about the lens is perfect. I see people who would refuse to buy such a lens just because it may have a few paint chips even though it's A. $200 less then any others. B. Has absolutely nothing wrong with it and performs just as well as the ones that sell for $2000. I don't see the point in this.

I buy used lens usually, unless I can't find what I want when I need it. I stick to L's as I can safely assume the original build quality will be there. I pay a bit more for this safety.

When buying used, you do not have the same comfort level as a new lens in a box with a warrantee and return policy. You have to risk that the owner(s) took care of the lens. Visible abuse is just a tell-tale that this may not be so.

Even a piece that looks good can be bad. Got a 300 F4 L IS on this board a few years ago that cost me another $125 to fix a jump in the IS controller. Would have been much more without the CPS coverage.

So no guarantees, so you control what you can.

To me scratches represent uncared for items - like they have been mistreated.. they make me wonder what else has happened to the items, like a can of coke spilled on a lens and wiped off, for e.g.

If someone does not care about a scratch on the body, they won't care about a scratch on the lens.. (a bit like Jazz said above)

Fluffbutt wrote in post #13361330
If someone does not care about a scratch on the body, they won't care about a scratch on the lens.. (a bit like Jazz said above)

I'm sorry, but what a load.
One is meaningless, one can maybe affect results if it's severe enough. I think the distinction between "wear" and "abuse" needs to be better defined here... Ideally from a perspective that does not value lenses as display pieces.

I would not buy a used car, only a few months old with a big dent in the door and a big scratch on the hood. Sure it drives perfectly.
John

Fluffbutt wrote in post #13361330
To me scratches represent uncared for items - like they have been mistreated.. they make me wonder what else has happened to the items, like a can of coke spilled on a lens and wiped off, for e.g.

If someone does not care about a scratch on the body, they won't care about a scratch on the lens.. (a bit like Jazz said above)

Wrong Answer and a Silly Generalization.

You'll find many photographers who have glass clean enough to eat off of despite whatever external blemishes may exist.

Buy, try, then sell. It's much easier to REsell a lens in excellent cosmetic condition. It may even bring a higher resale price.

dave

I bought my EF 50mm f/1.8 mk1 used on a film camera cheaply. The lens was absolutely filthy but had a very cheap UV filter installed and the lens was probably never off of the camera in 20 years. Anyway, I carefully cleaned up the lens with a slightly damp cloth and a toothbrush and it now looks like a pristine copy. Then I sold the film camera and ended up with a nice lens at a very good price. Sometimes one that doesn't look great actually is.

Certainly when I sell a lens, I make sure that it is as spotless as possible.

i personally have no problem with dinged up equipment as long as it functions properly.
recently, it seems camera gear went from being "tools" to "accessories" in my opinion.

I only go for like-new lenses myself. I have lenses two and a half years old that still look like I opened it out of the Canon box yesterday. I take care of my gear, so I go for those people who seem to take care of theirs.

I never understood why so many super-tele's look like crap. I understand for some they are just tools, but if I had a $5,000 lens around my neck I would baby that thing.