PDA

View Full Version : "Does not effect image"



Toyon
15-Feb-2015, 09:30
I think we should all drop the commonly used phrase, "does not effect the image". It is particularly difficult to prove that a chip, haze, schneideritis, rub mark, cleaning mark etc..., does not effect the image, unless exacting and precise measurements were taken before and after the damage.

Manufacturers of lenses know that careful control and precision have a significant effect on quality of a lenses' image. We can deduce from this that the issues listed above, will very likely have a negative effect on an image. To what degree? That is hard to assess. But "no effect", is extremely unlikely.

It is fair to say, "image remains sharp and contrasty", "image seems sharp compared to lenses without this issue", "I see no evidence that this has a significant effect on the images it produces".

William Whitaker
15-Feb-2015, 09:35
Besides, it's grammatically wrong.

mdarnton
15-Feb-2015, 09:41
I think we can count on people learning the difference between "effect" and "affect" when they have learned when an apostrophe belongs before an "s". That is, not in this world, ever.

Toyon
15-Feb-2015, 09:48
I think we can count on people learning the difference between "effect" and "affect" when they have learned when an apostrophe belongs before an "s". That is, not in this world, ever.

Most grammarians miss the point for the period.

Ken Lee
15-Feb-2015, 09:52
I muved this thred.

Dan Fromm
15-Feb-2015, 09:52
I think we can count on people learning the difference between "effect" and "affect" when they have learned when an apostrophe belongs before an "s". That is, not in this world, ever.

Charles' dog bit Michael.

goamules
15-Feb-2015, 10:02
Goerz got it right in 1915, when they said "The presence of a few air bubbles does not in any way affect the work of the lens." There have been a lot of tests with horrible, cracked, scratched, chipped lenses, which show they create perfect photos.

http://www.cameraeccentric.com/img/info/goerz_4/goerz_4_24.jpg

Sal Santamaura
15-Feb-2015, 10:12
Most grammarians miss the point for the period.No they don't. Most people who use sloppy, incorrect language fail to clearly communicate their point(s).

Mark Sawyer
15-Feb-2015, 11:03
There have been a lot of tests with horrible, cracked, scratched, chipped lenses, which show they create perfect photos.

But if you check those tests, you'll notice the light is always from well behind the lens. If you shoot into the light, all those little chips and scratches light up and lower the contrast.

mdarnton
15-Feb-2015, 11:15
http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html
The light isn't well behind in these.

Nodda Duma
15-Feb-2015, 11:22
At work we would use the term "does not significantly impact image quality". A nod to the fact that every aspect of a lens does affect image quality, as well as the fact that the particular aspect has been analyzed/examined and is not a significant contributor to image degradation in that design.

Jac@stafford.net
15-Feb-2015, 11:35
I think we can count on people learning the difference between "effect" and "affect" when they have learned when an apostrophe belongs before an "s". That is, not in this world, ever.

It's "it is" or "it has", and if that confuses then have a gin and it.
Pardon my British.

Ari
15-Feb-2015, 11:51
I had a Petzval with a chip in the rear element the size of a quarter.
The chip did not significantly affect image quality, or to my experience, it performed just as flawlessly as would a non-chipped lens.

With the advent of the internet, I have learned to be accepting of the fact that the norm is bad grammar, spelling and punctuation.

John Kasaian
15-Feb-2015, 11:55
It's buyer beware, always.
Besides that, imperfections in the glass are useful when making a counter offer.

Mark Sawyer
15-Feb-2015, 12:28
http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html
The light isn't well behind in these.

I noticed that person tested the lens against the sun in a blank sky, so there's not much to judge contrast against. And there was no "into the light" comparison shot from an undamaged lens.

Take a scratched up lens and look through it towards and away from the light. When the scratches light up, the film sees that light too.

Tin Can
15-Feb-2015, 12:37
http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html
The light isn't well behind in these.

Great link to a cool expeiment. I was so moved by these examples,






I grabbed my 2 oz ballpein hammer and improved all my lenses for macro!

Kidding!

I never touch or clean a lens unless it's really bad and then it is a careful process.

StoneNYC
15-Feb-2015, 13:22
To the original poster's point, I think if "Schneideritis" actually affected the image quality of the lens, the effect would be that Schneider would have changed their latter designs to alter the coating so that "Schneideritis" no longer happened.

They instead said essentially, 'it's fine' to use a colloquialism, "don't fix it if it 'ain't broke" and made no modification to their coating process. However Schneideritis' affect on people's attitudes toward a lens with the condition is that they are effectively "butthurt" by it regardless of no quantifiable change in image quality.

I tend to have run on sentences, but I THINK I have the grammar right.

Tin Can
15-Feb-2015, 13:27
Snideris ist lest of mine wories

Jim Galli
15-Feb-2015, 13:32
Won't be following this rule or any other generated by whoever "we" is in the original post. Buyer's Beware.

Defects are over rated in antique camera lenses. People who want perfect lenses should contact retailers who sell new ones. People buying antiques should pre-suppose imperfections of an aritcle that has stood the tests of time. Almost none of my antique lenses are flaw - less. If one is, you can count on me using words like "minty!" etc. and doubling the price.

Get over it.

ghostcount
15-Feb-2015, 13:44
"...lenses presumed innocent until proved guilty..." :rolleyes:

Leszek Vogt
15-Feb-2015, 14:00
....the more defects...the more they enhance coulodian, eh ? Just bought a Schneider and am farming some 'nitis....so I can enhance it's worth. Maybe I should stretch the truth a little and claim that it has seen some bullets flying, he he....I do realize that I'm stepping between political mines here...(not intended).

Les

Toyon
15-Feb-2015, 14:00
Goerz got it right in 1915, when they said "The presence of a few air bubbles does not in any way affect the work of the lens." There have been a lot of tests with horrible, cracked, scratched, chipped lenses, which show they create perfect photos.

http://www.cameraeccentric.com/img/info/goerz_4/goerz_4_24.jpg

Let's see those tests.....

koh303
15-Feb-2015, 14:01
I think we should all drop the commonly used phrase, "does not effect the image". It is particularly difficult to prove that a chip, haze, schneideritis, rub mark, cleaning mark etc..., does not effect the image, unless exacting and precise measurements were taken before and after the damage.

Manufacturers of lenses know that careful control and precision have a significant effect on quality of a lenses' image. We can deduce from this that the issues listed above, will very likely have a negative effect on an image. To what degree? That is hard to assess. But "no effect", is extremely unlikely.

It is fair to say, "image remains sharp and contrasty", "image seems sharp compared to lenses without this issue", "I see no evidence that this has a significant effect on the images it produces".

Actually, it would be much harder to say that a flawless lens is in fact flawless, as who knows what not easily visible damage is there, bad barrel threads, bad production example or any other defect causing a lens to preform not as it should.

Chips, dings, even scratches, most cases of haze, edge fungus, coating issues, WILL NOT affect the sharpness, contrast or other qualities of a lens even when shooting directly into the light.

On the other hand, some lenses are so bad, that even when they are brand new, they flare and loose all contrast at any hint of direct light.

So - if you do not like buying USED lenses that have not been in production for decades because they have defects that do not affect their operating quality, you should buy NEW lenses and leave everyone else alone.

koh303
15-Feb-2015, 14:02
Let's see those tests.....

Put a small screw driver blade in the middle of a lens and take a picture and tell me if you see any effect..

Someone already posted this, but you might have missed it:
http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html
As you can see someone has already re done this tests with more then a "few air bubbles".

Toyon
15-Feb-2015, 14:19
Won't be following this rule or any other generated by whoever "we" is in the original post. Buyer's Beware.

Defects are over rated in antique camera lenses. People who want perfect lenses should contact retailers who sell new ones. People buying antiques should pre-suppose imperfections of an aritcle that has stood the tests of time. Almost none of my antique lenses are flaw - less. If one is, you can count on me using words like "minty!" etc. and doubling the price.

Get over it.

You did not understand the post. What I stated was that a seller cannot honestly assert that a defect "has no effect" on a lens, unless it has been precisely tested in a before and after state.

koh303
15-Feb-2015, 14:30
You did not understand the post. What I stated was that a seller cannot honestly assert that a defect "has no effect" on a lens, unless it has been precisely tested in a before and after state.

I agree with jim, and as i said above, one cannot assert that any lens which has not been precisely tested will preform as expected.

Darin Boville
15-Feb-2015, 14:35
You did not understand the post. What I stated was that a seller cannot honestly assert that a defect "has no effect" on a lens, unless it has been precisely tested in a before and after state.

But is this a solution without a problem? How many times have you bought a used lens with a defect and been told "it has no effect on the image" and then find that it does indeed cause a problem? Has it ever happened to you? :)

--Darin

Toyon
15-Feb-2015, 14:36
Actually, it would be much harder to say that a flawless lens is in fact flawless, as who knows what not easily visible damage is there, bad barrel threads, bad production example or any other defect causing a lens to preform not as it should.

Chips, dings, even scratches, most cases of haze, edge fungus, coating issues, WILL NOT affect the sharpness, contrast or other qualities of a lens even when shooting directly into the light.

On the other hand, some lenses are so bad, that even when they are brand new, they flare and loose all contrast at any hint of direct light.

So - if you do not like buying USED lenses that have not been in production for decades because they have defects that do not affect their operating quality, you should buy NEW lenses and leave everyone else alone.

Wow. Dazzling illogic. You assert that it is hard to say that a "flawless lens is in indeed flawless", yet at the same time you assert that it is easy to determine that a flawed lens is not effected by those same flaws.

By the way, I buy used lenses all the time, many have flaws. But I won't buy from someone who asserts that there is "no effect" when he/she has no basis to make that claim.

koh303
15-Feb-2015, 14:43
Wow. Dazzling illogic. You assert that it is hard to say that a "flawless lens is in indeed flawless", yet at the same time you assert that it is easy to determine that a flawed lens is not effected by those same flaws.

By the way, I buy used lenses all the time, many have flaws. But I won't buy from someone who asserts that there is "no effect" when he/she has no basis to make that claim.

This is easy to follow:
Its impossible to say that a lens is flawless. It is easy to say that visible defects will not have an effect on the lens performance. A bad lens with a defect will still be bad. A bad lens without a defect will still be bad. Defects, even severe ones, have little or in most cases NOTHING to do with that.

Toyon
15-Feb-2015, 14:47
But is this a solution without a problem? How many times have you bought a used lens with a defect and been told "it has no effect on the image" and then find that it does indeed cause a problem? Has it ever happened to you? :)

--Darin

Actually a couple of times it has. A Cintar lens I bought was strongly effected by haze, even though it was very faint and the buyer said it had effect. Why are you defending people who make statements when they are selling that they almost certainly cannot prove?

Toyon
15-Feb-2015, 14:52
This is easy to follow:
Its impossible to say that a lens is flawless. It is easy to say that visible defects will not have an effect on the lens performance. A bad lens with a defect will still be bad. A bad lens without a defect will still be bad. Defects, even severe ones, have little or in most cases NOTHING to do with that.

You are conflating "easy to say" with "easy to prove". You have proved brilliantly how easy it is to say something.

Dan Fromm
15-Feb-2015, 16:17
But is this a solution without a problem? How many times have you bought a used lens with a defect and been told "it has no effect on the image" and then find that it does indeed cause a problem? Has it ever happened to you? :)

--DarinDarin, I've bought a couple of really crappy old lenses at camera shows with the classic "cleaned with sandpaper" look. The vendors said nothing about the scratches' effects on image quality and I made no assumptions. Two, an 80/2.8 Xenotar and a 127/4.7 Ektar, are, IMO, completely useless.

So yes, some badly abused lenses perform badly.

On the other hand, I have a 210/5.6 Boyer Zircon with ugly ugly coating damage on the front surface -- imagine a bad case of acne -- and it is actually usable.

Cheers,

Dan

Kodachrome25
15-Feb-2015, 17:06
I take the guesswork out by simply buying clean glass.

Darin Boville
15-Feb-2015, 17:17
Actually a couple of times it has. A Cintar lens I bought was strongly effected by haze, even though it was very faint and the buyer said it had effect. Why are you defending people who make statements when they are selling that they almost certainly cannot prove?

It is in the same category as "shutter speeds sound right"....of course they didn't test them, of course very few people actually test them. And, true, if off a bit it really won't make a practical difference in most people's photography just like a little blem on a lens element won't make a difference in most people's photography.

But if a seller describes an item accurately and then weighs in with his judgement that "the cleaning mark won't matter" then I bet you could easily separate out the statement of fact from the opinion, and weigh each accordingly. And if you are really unhappy just return it.

I think most people say things like "it won't effect the image" for the benefit of newcomers to the field who might be under the (very common) impression that a faint stretch on the front of the lens will result in an image of a faint scratch in their picture...people who demand perfect glass won't be buying these lenses anyways so the seller's judgement is moot...

Anyway, the question about effect on the image is unanswerable, even with your tests, since my uses might be very different from your uses and your test results might not be relevant.

Just be cool--buy with a return policy and just accept that the world is a messy place...

--Darin

erie patsellis
15-Feb-2015, 17:20
Of course, with efficient shading, most of the negative effects are easily ameliorated.

I am of the opinion that the quest for perfect glass, the perfect cameras, etc. just takes one farther and farther from making truly good images. I have some stellar lenses in regular use, yet the ones I keep going back to are the older, less than perfect ones whose "character" lends itself to image at hand. When I shot professionally, a compendium and adjustable masking frame were de rigeur, but when shooting creatively, i.e. non commercially, purely for personal enjoyment, then I tend to loosen up a bit. After all, it's just a hobby.

As the oft quoted adage goes, "it's a poor craftsman that blames his tools".

StoneNYC
15-Feb-2015, 17:51
You are conflating "easy to say" with "easy to prove". You have proved brilliantly how easy it is to say something.

HahaHahaha!!!

Burn!

:munch:

Jim Galli
15-Feb-2015, 18:10
Why are you defending people who make statements . . . . that they almost certainly cannot prove?

Welcome to the internet.

John Kasaian
15-Feb-2015, 18:36
You did not understand the post. What I stated was that a seller cannot honestly assert that a defect "has no effect" on a lens, unless it has been precisely tested in a before and after state.
"has no effect" is an opinion. That is all. It could be based on anything or it could be simply a sales spiel. Old lenses often have imperfections. They came that way. All my lenses do.
Once again "buyer beware."

jp
15-Feb-2015, 18:51
I sold a somewhat rare car some years ago after I'd had it for 5-6 years and 45,000 miles; the one and only car I'd ever bought new. The potential buyer came up from Maryland to Maine hoping for a perfect car as it had experienced minimal winter use and was in good shape. He found a minor scuff an inch long down low that could probably be easily fixed diy and declined the purchase and left on a bus. No such thing as a unrestored car in perfect condition with 45,000 miles on it. Didn't even want to bargain. It's hard to keep a "driver" car as nice as a lens. Basically, everyone has different standards of what "affect image quality" means, or like new or minty means. If you're like my potential car buyer, perhaps only buying lenses in person might be realistic. I don't sell many lenses, but I think good descriptive product photos mean more than words, and terms like image quality are not quantitative facts. Same deals with shutters... "Sounds like the speeds are good" might be accurate in the warm southwest but they might get molasses speeds when it's up here in my wintry abode.

BrianShaw
15-Feb-2015, 18:59
If I don't like the way something is described then I reserve the right to not buy. Or I ask a question and think about the answer (if one is offered). It is fruitless to attempt to change some folks sales techniques. But interesting discussion nonetheless.

Jim Galli
15-Feb-2015, 19:06
and declined the purchase and left on a bus. Your lucky day.

Tin Can
15-Feb-2015, 19:13
Soon we will have glass-less lenses, nothing but but air space and fancy physics.

At first they will be priceless, then they will be everywhere.

No glass, no glass defects.

But there may be disturbance in the force.

Not kidding.

jnantz
15-Feb-2015, 19:14
descriptions are made to entice a buyer.
buy with paypal, you have 45 days to see
if the lens is what the description says
and if it isn't just return it. no questions asked.

koh303
15-Feb-2015, 19:26
Soon we will have glass-less lenses, nothing but but air space and fancy physics.

At first they will be priceless, then they will be everywhere.

No glass, no glass defects.

But there may be disturbance in the force.

Not kidding.
The future of glasses, glass less lenses, by lou reed:
Scroll to 3:45

http://youtu.be/xduERw9BSns

koh303
15-Feb-2015, 19:27
descriptions are made to entice a buyer.
buy with paypal, you have 45 days to see
if the lens is what the description says
and if it isn't just return it. no questions asked.

Actually you have 180 days.

jnantz
15-Feb-2015, 19:30
Actually you have 180 days.

even better ...

Jim Galli
15-Feb-2015, 19:31
Soon we will have glass-less lenses, nothing but but air space and fancy physics.

At first they will be priceless, then they will be everywhere.

No glass, no glass defects.

But there may be disturbance in the force.

Not kidding.

I'm already writing my shtick. Zero percent image degradation loss from air glass interfaces . . .

Jody_S
15-Feb-2015, 22:27
Being a stickler for language, I am inclined to agree with the OP.

I prefer formulations such as: "Has no significant impact on image quality", or "In my opinion, this defect does not degrade image quality to any visible degree".

Tin Can
16-Feb-2015, 00:28
I'm already writing my shtick. Zero percent image degradation loss from air glass interfaces . . .

But, but, sputter.... those tiny dusts are creating vibration and destroying sharpness.

Look here! (http://www.ichmt.org/upcoming-meetings/ELS-X-07/Extended%20Abstracts/Serozhkin.pdf)

cyrus
16-Feb-2015, 01:30
Puffing - sales hype- is all it is, no one takes it seriously anyway.

But Certo6, who (used to?) repair folding cameras, did an experiment where he took several photos with a camera that had a dead bug behind the lens.

Result: Some barely noticeable lowered contrast.

I supposed any imperfection can affect a lens function, but some substantially less than others and som not really noticeable. People miss out on some wonderful lenses just because of a scratch it bubble
It seems to me more damage is done by trying to keeps lenses perfectly cleaned.

Doremus Scudder
16-Feb-2015, 02:48
Hyperbole is the norm in sales.

I think statements such as "does not (seem to) affect image quality," and "speed sound right" from reputable sellers don't even fall into the category of hyperbole. They are rather more-or-less honest assessments by the seller. If you trust the seller and his/her expertise, then you'll likely accept their judgment of how much difference a defect makes. Establishing reputability is what feedback is all about.

For the rest, well we'll just have to accept that exaggeration and misrepresentation have always been sales tools in the hands of the less scrupulous and be appropriately careful of such claims. No amount of posts or even legislation is going to change that appreciably.

Best,

Doremus

Jac@stafford.net
16-Feb-2015, 08:22
But, but, sputter.... those tiny dusts are creating vibration and destroying sharpness.

Look here! (http://www.ichmt.org/upcoming-meetings/ELS-X-07/Extended%20Abstracts/Serozhkin.pdf)

"The vibrations were excited in cigarette smoke with a loudspeaker."

129293

Oh, hippie days!

goamules
16-Feb-2015, 09:34
Lens damage affects are proportional. Here is my hypothesis*, in order of image deterioration from least to worst:


Damage condition 1 - One or two small cleaning wisps, bubbles, or edge separation of less than 3mm on large glass - unaffected image quality.
Damage condition 2 - A large edge chip less than 1/25th of total surface area, or medium center chip, of less than 1/100th of the total surface area - small increase in flare only when glass is illuminated by bright sun or flash. Normal shooting unaffected.
Damage condition 3 - Several large, deep scratches, over 10, or significant, multiple chips, or edge separation up to 1/10th of surface area - Same as above, but slight deterioration in contrast may be noticed in normal conditions.
Damage condition 4 - Entirely covered with small scratches, over 33% of surface area - loss of sharpness, flare.
Damage condition 5 - Significant, opaque haze, or totally covered with cleaning scratches - loss of sharpness, because of flare. Worst case.



*A hypothesis is an educated guess, and must be proven by the scientific method. We have a member here who works with/for a lens lab I believe. Perhaps he can be our scientist!

Jim Galli
16-Feb-2015, 10:00
Ultimately, the hyperbole has less effect than the OP seems worried about. If you look at my threads on this forum, you'll find that I spoke harshly of the last thing I sold here, calling it an old "terd" of a lens and had no problem finding a buyer. No one seems to be fooled by language either way. Talk it down, talk it up, to me the more important thing is that the ultimate buyer feel he got a fair assessment and price. I want to be able to sell other things here in the future. That's far more important than trying to fool people and squeeze the last nickel.

Toyon
16-Feb-2015, 11:45
There is a vast difference in saying, "Does not", and saying, "Doesn't seem to", "I don't think" or "Does not appear to", or "In my opinion.....". "Does not" means that you know this to be a fact. My real objection is that sellers often routinely insert this phrase without thinking. Flaws in lenses are not usually worth correcting, but flaws in language are.

I never mentioned the role of the buyer. So all the warnings about how wary a buyer should be are irrelevant to the post. This is about the seller. He/she should refrain from making statements about facts that they cannot support.

ic-racer
16-Feb-2015, 11:59
Certainly does not "effect" image quality. I'd just replace the phrase with "Does affect resale value." Everyone agrees on that.

Jmarmck
16-Feb-2015, 12:17
I tend to keep looking when I see that statement or any other similar euphemism designed to entice a buyer.
I look for tangible words like "no" followed by words like scratches, dings, dints, fungus, haze, separation. You know, those things that cannot be missed by anyone with a bit of knowledge. As for "sounds like", I ignore those. I also bypass words like "as is" unless I am looking for parts.

It makes debates such as this moot.

Heroique
16-Feb-2015, 12:52
...We'll just have to accept that exaggeration and misrepresentation have always been sales tools.

Disgruntled buyer: You said it "does not effect image quality"!

Defensive seller: Yes, and I meant what I said – it does not produce image quality, none at all. I was just being honest. Perhaps you thought I meant "affect." Either way, good luck!

Tin Can
16-Feb-2015, 13:28
I always look at the Internet seller's reputation.

If they never sell, I don't buy their one instance. Maybe. Never say never.

If they sell often here or eBay, they usually have feedback.

That said, I have gambled on eBay and won. One recent purchase from a non- seller who took bad pictures of my now favorite camera, dissed the perfect lens\shutter and shipped so slow slowly I thought he was a flake. It was only $600.

How many of you have attended, sold and bought at live auctions? I used to do live auctions often, crazy fun. I also miss swap meets, they are a shadow of what they were. Usually at swap meets the deals all happened minutes before opening. I remember guys carrying briefcases of cash with bodyguards. They were very serious buyers.

Costco takes back cameras up to 90 days, no questions asked. I suggest complainers buy new only.

Michael Graves
16-Feb-2015, 14:04
... I have gambled on eBay and won. ...

I've had good and bad experiences. My Eastman 5x7 2D came about due to an auction that was taking place while I was on a business trip. I'm in a motel room looking through ebay because television sucks and I was doing my usual search for misspelled items. I found an Eatman 2d with a 11" Ectar and other parts. It was described as "fine condition for an old camera." No bidders. I placed a last second bid and took it home for under $200. The outfit was literally mint. No cleaning marks on the lens and the wood finish glistened. The "Other parts" consisted of a matched extension rail, a 4x5 reducing back and an extra lens board with a working Packard shutter..

On the other side of the coin, I got a "Mint" 90mm Angulon for $275.00. Got it in and the glass was nice, but the shutter wouldn't stay open for focusing and the lower speeds were sticky. This was one of those times that Paypal sided with the seller. They ascertained that Mint referred to cosmetics only and they upheld the sale. (Mark that down, those of you who say they only find in favor of the buyer.) I bit the bullet and sold it here, after specifically stating that the focus-lock would not stay open and that the longer speeds were in need of a CLA. I got $125.00 if I recall correctly.

The point is that with many sellers, the descriptions are quite literally worthless. With the 2D, I went on the basis of the photographs the seller posted. They told me far more than the description. With the 90mm, the photographs hid the flaws.

jnantz
16-Feb-2015, 14:14
the complainers are going to complain no matter what.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=yelp+read+by+actors

BrianShaw
16-Feb-2015, 15:50
Ultimately, the hyperbole has less effect than the OP seems worried about. If you look at my threads on this forum, you'll find that I spoke harshly of the last thing I sold here, calling it an old "terd" of a lens and had no problem finding a buyer. ...

But things may have been different if you called it an old TURD.

Mark Sawyer
16-Feb-2015, 18:19
Either way, it's a really great old turd... :)

Jac@stafford.net
16-Feb-2015, 19:24
I always look at the Internet seller's reputation.

Yeah, and they look at ours. I bid and a seller wrote back, "Are you the dickhead that dated my sister?" So much for using real names, eh?
.

Sal Santamaura
16-Feb-2015, 22:29
Yeah, and they look at ours. I bid and a seller wrote back, "Are you the dickhead that dated my sister?" So much for using real names, eh?On the contrary, a strong argument in favor of requiring real names. :)

StoneNYC
16-Feb-2015, 22:54
Yeah, and they look at ours. I bid and a seller wrote back, "Are you the dickhead that dated my sister?" So much for using real names, eh?
.

Why doesn't his response surprise me ;)

in another note, it's better that the seller say that the lens has some issues but that those issues don't affect the image, then to tell you the lens is in perfect condition and when you get it it's covered in dirt and scratches... So, there's always worse.

John Kasaian
16-Feb-2015, 23:34
Don't lawyers get paid by the word?:rolleyes:

Regular Rod
17-Feb-2015, 01:36
i muved this thred.
:)
rr

Doremus Scudder
17-Feb-2015, 05:34
Disgruntled buyer: You said it "does not effect image quality"!

Defensive seller: Yes, and I meant what I said it does not produce image quality, none at all. I was just being honest. Perhaps you thought I meant "affect." Either way, good luck!

Very funny! I was thinking this too, but didn't have the "chutzpah" to post it. Made my day!



There is a vast difference in saying, "Does not", and saying, "Doesn't seem to", "I don't think" or "Does not appear to", or "In my opinion.....". "Does not" means that you know this to be a fact. My real objection is that sellers often routinely insert this phrase without thinking. Flaws in lenses are not usually worth correcting, but flaws in language are. ...

Toyon,

I once had a writing professor that marked all instances of "in my opinion," "I think/believe," etc. as "superfluous." If I say something "does" or "does not," it is simply my opinion. I don't need to preface a statement with a disclaimer. Don't confuse opinion and proof, not to mention lies, hyperbole, exaggeration, dishonesty, etc.

The problem with what you are trying to have people do here is that no one who is trying to pull the wool over your eyes is going to heed your advice. On the contrary, they'll just laugh at your naivety.

Know your seller, do the research yourself, get assurances of satisfaction guaranteed, etc., and quit trying to change the behavior of others; it just won't work.

Best,

Doremus

jnantz
17-Feb-2015, 05:57
Ultimately, the hyperbole has less effect than the OP seems worried about. If you look at my threads on this forum, you'll find that I spoke harshly of the last thing I sold here, calling it an old "terd" of a lens and had no problem finding a buyer.

jim
what you didn't realize that calling something a "terd" is slang in some circles
NOT for a useless piece of $-ite, but something good..
besides you lovingly called the lens a terd, which is no different than when katherine
called henry fonda "an olde poop" in --- "on golden pond"

so ... the buyer knew it was code for something good, not something bad ...

BrianShaw
17-Feb-2015, 07:53
Don't lawyers get paid by the word?:rolleyes:

Only when their lips are moving. Otherwise they get paid by the minute.

Jim Galli
17-Feb-2015, 07:59
jim
what you didn't realize that calling something a "terd" is slang in some circles
NOT for a useless piece of $-ite, but something good..
besides you lovingly called the lens a terd, which is no different than when katherine
called henry fonda "an olde poop" in --- "on golden pond"

so ... the buyer knew it was code for something good, not something bad ...

Dangit! I should have asked for more for the old dear.

fishbulb
17-Feb-2015, 14:19
Another test, similar to Kurt Munger's, but testing for lens dust: www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/08/the-apocalypse-of-lens-dust

And another test, with scratches: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches

Long story short, unless you are stopping down quite a bit, using a very wide angle, or focusing very close (i.e. so that your DOF comes very close to the lens itself), you really aren't going to see most lens scratches/dust/fungus/etc. in the final image.

goamules
18-Feb-2015, 08:16
Good extreme examples of "Condition 5" damage. I'd never sell a lens in condition 3-5 though. So if I sell one with condition 1-2 damage, my description of possible image affects will be unchanged.

Leszek Vogt
18-Feb-2015, 14:06
Perhaps this may be way too obvious...if it 'does not effect image', how about showing several images (recent) taken with this particular lens. Visual confirmation is not everything, but it can be golden.

Les

djdister
18-Feb-2015, 15:18
Perhaps this may be way too obvious...if it 'does not effect image', how about showing several images (recent) taken with this particular lens. Visual confirmation is not everything, but it can be golden.

Les

You could certainly ask, but this would not be a solution if the seller is deceptive. They could post anything, from a different lens, to a shot that does not have any sharp detail, and etc.
It comes back to trust - a trustworthy seller wouldn't need to post proof of his claim, and an untrustworthy seller could not be counted on to show honest proof.

jp
18-Feb-2015, 15:19
Perhaps this may be way too obvious...if it 'does not effect image', how about showing several images (recent) taken with this particular lens. Visual confirmation is not everything, but it can be golden.

Les

That's crazy; owning a lens to be used to make photographs? Just kidding.

It works though. Although the lenses I use I don't want to part with. The lenses I sell come from cameras or deals from which the lens was not of interest to me and legitimately aren't going to be used by me. But if someone's got the time and the lens is valuable, it's helpful.

Mark Sawyer
18-Feb-2015, 18:52
Technically, wouldn't one have to test the same lens, both before and after the damage, with a variety of lighting conditions, apertures, and focal distances, to be sure there's no effect?

Tin Can
18-Feb-2015, 19:01
:).