Lens gurus: is this bulls**t?

[squirrel$$$bandit]

A few weeks ago I sold a lens on eBay: the wonderful Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 50/1.4. It was as close to mint as you're going to find with a seventies optic, and I could find no marks at all on the glass. Today I got the following email from the buyer:

Hi, this lens has a small defect in the coating just by the number '9' in the serial number. It is full depth and will affect results as we suffer from very harsh light here, being near the South Pole. I would like to return it to you for credit.

Well, whatever--I'm happy to refund the guy, as long as he doesn't expect a shipping refund. Indeed, I'm kind of glad this happened--I sold the lens because I have the M version, but in certain ways I prefer using this one on my DSLR, and will be happy to have it back. But this seems awfully fussy to me at best, and perhaps total BS at worst. A tiny flaw in the coating? On the front element? At the very edge? And this will affect the guy's photos because he lives close to the south pole?

Here's a photo of the lens from the auction. What do you think? (That is a dust speck under JAPAN, not a flaw!)

 

[hans voralberg]

Beat me, I cant see anything at all. And where exactly is near the South Pole ? Antarctica ?

 

[KoNickon]

Just give him the refund and get your lens back. He's full of it, by the way (or ridiculously fussy). I'll bet when you look it over that you can't find what he's talking about.

 

[feenej]

That's really funny. Did he also say, "So a penguin walks into a bar..."

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Just give him the refund and get your lens back. He's full of it, by the way (or ridiculously fussy). I'll bet when you look it over that you can't find what he's talking about.

Yeah, he'll get the refund, I'm not fussy about stuff like this. Even if I do see the flaw he means, I'll use the lens with pleasure. It's one of my favorites ever, in any format.

As for his location, he's about as close to the south pole as New York is to Los Angeles.

 

[monochromejrnl]

i can't see anything and although I'm not an optics expert, there is no way that any tiny coating imperfection at the edge of the front element would affect image quality in any discernable way...

i just picked up a 90/2'cron v2 that has a 4mm round chip at the edge of the rear element for cheap and the are absolutely no image quality issues with the lens...

i also use a UGLY tessar on a rolleiflex (two or three 1cm + long scratches on the front element of the taking lens and a couple more on the rear element) and I can't see any issues with the image quality...

above shot wide open at f3.5 with this lens - the scratches are deep and long and very very noticeable when I run my finger across the glass ...

 

[Petroleum V. Nasby]

When they have "buyer's remorse" or change their mind, they will make up any story to get their money back. A lot of them just want to "test drive" or play with the equipment.

There are a few really insane buyers who find something wrong with anything you send them, they must take out a microscope to inspect things.

You can't win with these people.

 

[majid]

Make sure the returned lens has the same serial number as the one that went out...

 

[MartinP]

And, obviously, makes sure he ships it trackable and fully insured. One wouldn't want it to mysteriously disappear en-route.... Not that your guy would be so evil, but someone, somewhere, one day might be.

 

[Santafecino]

Negative comment on eBay is a serious sanction; to avoid it it's best to do what the buyer wants. But that doesn't mean the customer had a real issue. You are just being considerate.

 

[pesphoto]

I would tell him to jump in a lake. I dont see any defect.
Let him provide the proof of his claim.

 

[Petroleum V. Nasby]

If the buyer paid with PayPal, he could do a "not as described" complaint and end up with both the lens AND the money, if he knows how to work the system.

"Go jump in the lake" not a good tactic. If he paid with a money order, cash or wire transfer, then tell him to dance for his money back.

 

[sepiareverb]

I didn;t know the Takumar came in M mount- or is it LTM like the 43/1.9?

 

[Frank1969]

I once had a Hasselblad CF 150mm lens with a chip the size of one square milimeter out of the frontlens, into the glass, a few mm's from the rim. Never had any effect on any photo's, slides, colour or b&w.

 

[oscroft]

I agree that a minor blemish (that you can't even see in a close-up photograph) close to the edge of a lens won't have any noticeable effect on the images - whether they're shot in New York, at the South Pole, or off the Shoulder of Orion.

And I think I'd also be quite pleased to be getting an SMC Takumar 50/1.4 back - it's a cracking lens.

 

[pesphoto]

At least ask the dude to try it out and see the results before sending a refund. A tiny nick, if there is one, wont harm a thing.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I didn;t know the Takumar came in M mount- or is it LTM like the 43/1.9?

Oh I see what you mean! You thought I meant Lecia M. No, it's a Pentax-M, with a Pentax mount. I wish it was in Leica M-mount, I would LOVE to get to use this lens with my RF gear!

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I also agree it would be wonderful to buy and sell stuff in person. I missed the golden age of the photo shows...who knows, maybe someday they'll return.

 

[spyder2000]

The customer always "thinks" he's right. As you plan to do, accept the return and refund his money less shipping.

Then sell it to me.

 

[Keith]

I think you did the right thing ... there's plenty of nit pickers like him out there and as annoying as they are it's better to humour them and keep your healthy eBay feedback rating intact. As long as he understands that the cost of returning the lens is his responsibility it's just more of an inconvenience than a real problem. Pretty lame excuse though ... South Pole indeed! 😛