Would This Upset You On a Used Lens?

I would be completely flabbergasted if someone raised that as a concern.

this is ridiculous

If you get those marks from mounting and unmounting a lens, you're rough with your equipment. I have plastic mount lenses on old canon bodies that don't look like that. Does it matter? Not sure, probably not. It's just a clue how the previous owner treated it.

^ this

depending on the asking price I guess...

Bear in mind that let's say you bought it and want to sell it in the future, it will definitely have a negative impact on your selling price too.

So what's the story - was this actually a problem in someone's mind or is this simply a market research study to estimate how POTN enthusiasts roughly divide in to Tool vs Jewel mindsets?

WhyFi wrote in post #16682450
So what's the story - was this actually a problem in someone's mind or is this simply a market research study to estimate how POTN enthusiasts roughly divide in to Tool vs Jewel mindsets?

This is a real scenario with a recent buyer of the lens . I am the owner of the 16-35 and wanted to get unbiased opinions on the severity of the ding and to gauge whether or not the buyer is overreacting.

To be honest, I totally missed the ding on the mount when I was cleaning it, taking photos, and again when I inspected it before shipping. Looking back at my photos at 100% crop, I can see it, but during normal inspection I didn't. A simple, honest mistake. Note taken to look more closely at the lens mount in addition to the optics.

I understand the buyer's surprise and concern for the nick. I have been open, prompt, and considerate to his concerns through the 4 days of emailing back and forth. The buyer talked it up as significant damage to the rear mount, but then when I received his photos, I was dumbfounded that he was complaining about something so small. The real kicker to me is that he had to bust out the macro mode to magnify the nick. I mean, look at the size comparison to the Date Code lettering.

The buyer requested that I refund him $20, saying, "I would be happy keeping the lens with the refund. My PayPal is..." I told him that I wasn't comfortable reimbursing him that amount, as he already stated image quality and functionality is as it should be. I feel like he's nitpicking, searching hard to find something wrong, and is trying to play me. Potentially Buyer's Remorse? The buyer followed up with "You are over-reacting.
$20 is just as small as the ding on the mount."

I don't play games when it comes to "Reimburse me this amount or I will leave you poor feedback on the forum."

Since I declined to reimburse him $20, his emails have become much shorter and much more close minded, He even added insult to my profession as a wedding photographer, stating "Anyone can take [good] photos, with good lens [Sic] and camera."

WhyFi wrote in post #16682177
I would be completely flabbergasted if someone raised that as a concern.

Yeah, I am too.

DreDaze wrote in post #16682297
this is ridiculous

See above.

Frodge wrote in post #16682371
If you get those marks from mounting and unmounting a lens, you're rough with your equipment. I have plastic mount lenses on old canon bodies that don't look like that. Does it matter? Not sure, probably not. It's just a clue how the previous owner treated it.

I work full-time as an editorial newspaper, magazine, and wedding photographer. I am definitely not easy on my equipment, often working quickly to get the frames that keep a roof over my head. Lenses and cameras are tools. With that said, I have never dropped a lens, or caused significant damage to one. There is a difference between being careless and demanding. Metal on metal is going to make noise, scratch, and unfortunately, I guess ding a little.

LV Moose wrote in post #16682014
As long as it goes on and comes off okay, it wouldn't bother me.

Thanks for your opinion. That's usually my expectation of used equipment. I expect it to have some wear on the rear mount from normal use.

ksbal wrote in post #16682039
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.

Thanks for your thoughts.

davidfarina wrote in post #16682067
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...

Price was between $1250-1300.

tkbslc wrote in post #16682080
If you need macro mode to see the defects, it's in great shape!

My thoughts exactly.

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.

The lens was serviced by CPS about 3 weeks ago with my other lenses with mounts in way worse condition. They didn't say anything about it.

InfiniteDivide wrote in post #16682125
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?

I realize there are a few of your kind out there on the marketplace. Lens was priced between $1250-1300.

Charlie wrote in post #16682161
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.

Same with all of my other lenses.

kin2son wrote in post #16682403
depending on the asking price I guess...

Bear in mind that let's say you bought it and want to sell it in the future, it will definitely have a negative impact on your selling price too.

Based on the thoughts here about the issue, I doubt it will have any affect on resale value. From my experience on the marketplace over the past 4 years with more than 100 positive transactions, people are much more concerned with (in this order):

1. Glass condition
2. Sharpness
3. Body condition
4. Date code
5. Box

Did you include your original sales receipt with the sale? Did your buyer complain the paper was folded and the ink was smudged?

Oh, the horror!!

Yea, this is why when I buy stuff I try to reassure the seller that I'm not going to be an anal A-hole.

bogeypro wrote in post #16682562
Did you include your original sales receipt with the sale? Did your buyer complain the paper was folded and the ink was smudged?

Oh, the horror!!

Hahahahaha no, I was the second owner. Heck, maybe the original owner did that and I used it for a year and never noticed.

So you admit that you totally missed the ding and didn't specify it in the sale listing, and now the buyer is ONLY asking for a measly $20 reimbursement for an item over $1200 and you refuse?

Tbh I'd just give him the $20 and move on. I'm actually surprised that's all he's asking....

The buyer is an OCD moron that probably puts his lens in a climate controlled humidifier and is probably treated better than his children

I can see this guy using a loupe while wearing cotton gloves to carefully mount his lens on his camera to prevent "damage"

Staszek wrote in post #16682544
Yeah, I am too.

See above.

I work full-time as an editorial newspaper, magazine, and wedding photographer. I am definitely not easy on my equipment, often working quickly to get the frames that keep a roof over my head. Lenses and cameras are tools. With that said, I have never dropped a lens, or caused significant damage to one. There is a difference between being careless and demanding. Metal on metal is going to make noise, scratch, and unfortunately, I guess ding a little.

So I was correct, and it's not an insult or attack on you.