Would This Upset You On a Used Lens?

Do you see any defects on this lens mount that would raise a red flag to buy used? Is this common from daily use of lenses?

As long as it goes on and comes off okay, it wouldn't bother me.

Is it a metal or plastic mount? What lens is it? Z date code is a 2011 lens, so it is not very old.

I bought one more worn that that. Still a great lens.

put it on your camera, take some shots, go pixel peep. that is the best test.

InfiniteDivide wrote in post #16682036
Is it a metal or plastic mount? What lens is it? Z date code is a 2011 lens, so it is not very old.

It's the metal mount on a 16-35 II in like new condition. The photo was taken with a compact camera with a macro feature to enlarge the detail. From my experience this is caused by mounting a lens quickly and it banging into the body's metal mount before turning it locked.

Functionality is 100% normal.

Well my 16-35Lii buyed last year looks like new on the mount and everywhere, after heavy use...

But if it mounts without forcing it and it releases okay i really wouldnt mind. If you paid under 1300$ you made a good deal if everything works as expected...

Staszek wrote in post #16682047
It's the metal mount on a 16-35 II in like new condition. The photo was taken with a compact camera with a macro feature to enlarge the detail. From my experience this is caused by mounting a lens quickly and it banging into the body's metal mount before turning it locked.

Functionality is 100% normal.

If it was advertised as in Like New condition, and it had that mount, I'd be upset. But, if it was said to be in excellent condition other than some wear on the mount, I'd probably be ok with it. Honestly, the condition of the mount wouldn't really bother me, but if it's claimed to be in LN condition, it should look like it came out of the box, which it clearly doesn't. As a barometer, I think if KEH was selling this lens, they'd say it was EX in condition, but not LN.

Are you buying or selling this lens?

Staszek wrote in post #16682047
The photo was taken with a compact camera with a macro feature to enlarge the detail. .

If you need macro mode to see the defects, it's in great shape!

KirkS518 wrote in post #16682079
If it was advertised as in Like New condition, and it had that mount, I'd be upset. But, if it was said to be in excellent condition other than some wear on the mount, I'd probably be ok with it. Honestly, the condition of the mount wouldn't really bother me, but if it's claimed to be in LN condition, it should look like it came out of the box, which it clearly doesn't. As a barometer, I think if KEH was selling this lens, they'd say it was EX in condition, but not LN.

Are you buying or selling this lens?

Let me clarify, "in excellent condition, looks like new"... with more details thrown in about the rest of the lens, whats included, etc. Based on the first photo, it would be easy to miss this tiny nick on the mount, especially when giving it the standard review before listing it for sale and shipping.

All of my lenses have more wear than this on the lens mount for daily use. I am just curious to see what everyone else's expectations are when receiving a used lens.

"in excellent condition, looks like new"

That would be a pretty fair description, but I hope they are also mentioning the wear to the mount. I really don't care about the condition of the mount when I'm buying a lens, as long as it mounts properly, but I could see it being an issue with some buyers.

The 'mount' (bayonet actually) can be replaced easily and inexpensively, so it's not that big of a deal.

What's the pitting on the mount from? I think that would make me more suspicious then the small ding.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16682103
What's the pitting on the mount from? I think that would make me more suspicious then the small ding.

That's probably dust. Keep in mind the size of the Date Code letters compared to the ding, so the magnification of this photo is noticeable.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16682101
"in excellent condition, looks like new"

That would be a pretty fair description, but I hope they are also mentioning the wear to the mount. I really don't care about the condition of the mount when I'm buying a lens, as long as it mounts properly, but I could see it being an issue with some buyers.

The 'mount' (bayonet actually) can be replaced easily and inexpensively, so it's not that big of a deal.

No mention of the wear to the mount was in the description, as it was missed under initial inspection. Lens mounts properly and works 100% as it should.

The lens was actually taken into CPS 3 weeks ago for a clean and check. They said nothing about the mount in-store during the inspection.

I like my gear to look like new, but I would happily take a worn metal mount for a discount. How much was the lens? Where did you buy it?

IMHO, you shouldnt worry about the mount. I just took a look at my near new lenses, and mounts seem to scratches and nicks. It's metal on metal, how can it be perfect?

If I did a macro of my lens mounts, it would be pretty bad, if not worse than the lens you have. If the outside appearance looks near new, then it's near new.