Used Schneider 72XL, Obvious Fungus - Arghh!

[Andre Noble]

I just received my dream lens - a (used) Schneider 72XL, serial number 14579117 from B&H Photo Video. Age is 10 years old, based on this serial number. B&H listed it as a '9' under their used equipment rating scale. They sold it to me for for $1,150.

Much to my dismay, the lens has very obvious fungus coating the entire outer surface of an internal element within the front cell set. It's going back to B&H tomorrow.

What do you think B&H will do with it?

[Capocheny]

Try and sell it again except, this time, it'll be an 8 instead of a 9! :>)

Thing is... someone may buy it just to do those strange and magical "alternative fine art" prints!

Guess this is another positive reason for dealing with great dealers such as Jim at MidWest, or Jeff at Badger!

BTW, make sure they don't catch you on the shipping charges!!

Cheers

[Andre Noble]

I just now sent it back to B&H my dime. I figure, if it had been an OBVIOUS problem, I'd have them pay shipping. But the problem is not something someone inexperienced, or someone experienced but in indoor lighting would have seen. Took S. California sun to spot it in a second, though. I'm sure the large format photographer who sold it to them knew about the fungus, though.

[Andre Noble]

The 'fungus', on second thought could have been a case of serious lens separation. The problem covered a good portion of the entire surface of an element. It gave the appearance of the residue left over when extremely hard water has evaporated from a glass bowl.

(If this site had direct image uploading and storage capabilities (like Photonet), I would have uploaded a picture for you.)

[Ralph Barker]

. . . (If this site had direct image uploading and storage capabilities (like Photonet), I would have uploaded a picture for you.)

It does. Just scroll down from the text box and you'll see a "Manage Attachments" link in the "Attach Files" section. You can upload an image directly from your computer or via a URL if the image is already online. There is a size limitation of 650x650 pixels and 180KB for jpegs.

[400d]

Use tinypic.com or imageshack.us, it's that simple.

[Capocheny]

Andre,

LOL... I'm confused with your various postings... :) You said in your first post that it "has very obvious fungus coating the entire outer surface of an internal element within the front cell set."

Then, your second posting states, "I figure, if it had been an OBVIOUS problem, I'd have them pay shipping. But the problem is not something someone inexperienced, or someone experienced but in indoor lighting would have seen."

This implies that the problem wasn't obvious.

In your final post, you state, "The 'fungus', on second thought could have been a case of serious lens separation. The problem covered a good portion of the entire surface of an element. It gave the appearance of the residue left over when extremely hard water has evaporated from a glass bowl.

So, inquiring minds want to know... is it or is it not obvious? Is it fungal or is it not?

Do post a picture... :)

[PS: Whichever case it is... it "sounds" obvious to me that there's a definite problem here and the lens would have been shipped back faster than you could say the word fungus!!!:)]

Cheers

[Andre Noble]

Fungus was obvious to me, once it had the right shaft of sunlight through lens, while viewing it in a darkened room, fungus illuminated quite obviously. I literally saw it within a second or two. But it would likely not in the least obvious to a stock clerk who doesn't know what to look for, or to someone looking at it in the wrong lighting.

By obvious defect, I mean a ding in the rim, deep scratch in the front or rear elements, etc. The fungus was not in the front element, but on an element deep in the front cell.

If I had known posting pics here was possible, would have made some digital snaps of it. As of now, lens is GONE to whence it came.

As second part of two lens order, B&H just now sent me a really lovely replacement for a previous Nikkor 90 4.5. order that was not up to snuff. I took someone's advice in the previous post about New Lens Dilemna, and decided to go with the odds and try for another Nikkor. So I'm still a believer in B&H. But as for their used department, well....

Thanks for your input and taking time to reply.

[Capocheny]

Well, glad things worked out in the end... nothing worse than getting stiffed with a piece of unusable gear, is there?

Cheers

[Lazybones]

B+H has the lens up for sale again, at the same price, and with no mention of any issues. Nice.

[Ted Harris]

A very reputable dealer, no one we know here sine the store closed its doors about two years ago, once told me that most dealers will not look too closely at lenses they take in for resale, especially high volume dealers. Such a practice enables theem to maintain plausible deniability if the buyer sends the lens back. They will, of course cheerfully replace the lens or refund the buyers money. Why? Because lots of folks will either never look carefully or won't return the lens. Not very admirable but some would argue reasonable business.

Just another reason to shop with folks like MidWest where Jim will tell you abot every little speck of dust in the lens.

[Capocheny]

A very reputable dealer, no one we know here sine the store closed its doors about two years ago, once told me that most dealers will not look too closely at lenses they take in for resale, especially high volume dealers. Such a practice enables theem to maintain plausible deniability if the buyer sends the lens back. They will, of course cheerfully replace the lens or refund the buyers money. Why? Because lots of folks will either never look carefully or won't return the lens. Not very admirable but some would argue reasonable business.

Just another reason to shop with folks like MidWest where Jim will tell you abot every little speck of dust in the lens.

Hi Ted,

As much as I agree with your comment, IMHO, ignorance is no defence for them to be taking this attitude (and, I know you're not defending them on this point.) They ARE betting on the odds that there will be that segment of the buying population who will not notice, or are reticent to return the item. So, they win!

However, I think this is a short-sighted strategy (and, again, I'm sure you agree with me on this.) If this happened to me with x-seller, I'd be peeved with them for wasting my time and energy. Secondly, even if they accepted it back with absoluletly no hassles or questions asked, I'd still be "hesitant" to do business with them again. Why? Because I'd ALWAYS have that lingering doubt in the back of my mind where I'd be thinking, "Hmmmm... I wonder if I'll get a defective product again?" So, it's a crap-shoot whether I'd go back to them again. At the end of the day, I'd debate whether this is good business practice for any company to engage in!

Bottom line? Personally speaking, they would lose me as a customer! I ALWAYS choose to do business with those companies/individuals that I both like AND trust. This is just ME though and I can't say that for everyone else! :)

So, I agree with you completely about dealing with folks like Jim at MidWest Photo. Or, Jeff at Badger Graphics.

Cheers

[Ted Harris]

We totally agree, in fact, I can tell you two dealers right off the top of my head that subscribe to this practice for mail order/web purchases. Makes me so mad I wouldn't evenshop with them in person where I can look closely at the tiems. NO not any of the super biggies but names most here would know.

[Capocheny]

:) I knew we would! :)

It's all in the psychology of the transaction and how this impacts on our attitudes toward a retailer.

I feel the same way about people I do business with on e**y. There are sellers out there that I would go back to again and again simply because I "know" them and feel a degree of trust with the way they do business. And, likewise, they would most likely feel similarily toward me as a buyer. For these folks, even if I had to pay a bit more for the item, I would gladly do so. It's an "investment" in mitigating "future" headaches! :)

What baffles me is that some of these retailers think that "we" don't communicate with each other. Of course, we all know they're absolutely wrong. If they shaft one of us, eventually, we communicate that wrong-doing with each other. And, of course, there goes the seller's reputation. But, some of them "just don't get it!"

I don't know if you've ever dealt with Rob Skeoch [http://www.bigcameraworkshops.com/default2.asp] up here in Canada or not. But, I've had the pleasure of buying a number of items from him and I wouldn't hesitate in recommending that he be added to the list along with Jim and Jeff. They're all as honest as there ever is/was... :)

[BTW, I don't have anything to do with Rob or his company... I'm just another happy and satisfied customer!]

Happy upcoming 4th of July to all our American friends!

Cheers

[Andre Noble]

B+H has the lens up for sale again, at the same price, and with no mention of any issues. Nice.

And you know what, I totally understand B&H and don't fault what they did. They are stuck with the lens, they can't send it back to the manufacturer. They took it back from me without a word of complaint, and gave me a full refund. With these used items, it's buyer beware. I would imagine if they received 2 or three similar, consecutive complaints, they'd remove it from website and try to sell it through other means. They ARE going to get their money, one way or another.

Some guy will get the lens, use it for 20 years, and won't notice or won't care.

BTW, In hindsight, what I saw as 'fungus' may instead have been some beginnings of seperation between elements, not that that matters. Lens had problems.:)

PS: And everyone keeps saying Jeff is honest, above repraoch, etc. Dealers have to move their products. If they have to tell little white lies, they will. It's always gonna be buyer beware, regardless if you think the seller is a 'nice guy' or whatever.

Also, one thing I've been following is B&H stock of Rodenstock lenses. Most available as "Special order" Meaning, they arrive direct from manufacturer or something.
They have a few 'in stock' Rodie lenses. I ordered two. One was a razor/laser sharp Sironar 150 S. The other, from packaging, looked like someone once took out of package, hmm.. was also in stock at the time. I found it to be just a hair off "keeper' status in the sharpness department... Next, I prefer to order one that's not 'in stock' (as in our available, used 72XL:) ), if you catch my drift.

In their defence, B&H just sent me a FABULOUS in stock Nikkor SW 90 4.5 in a return for identical lens I was not happy with. They treated me with kindness, and have never given me problems. They are fair business people in my experience over 60 transactions, mostly small items, to date.

[Lazybones]

And you know what, I totally understand B&H and don't fault what they did.


A "9"? "Shows signs of use, but very clean"? I don't understand how not to fault them. Misleading at best...

[Capocheny]

A "9"? "Shows signs of use, but very clean"? I don't understand how not to fault them. Misleading at best...

Have to agree with you, Lazybones! IMHO, it's a matter of business ethics and just because they missed the fault in the lens does not mean it's proper, or morally correct, to try and pawn it off on some unsuspecting buyer!

After all, these guys are supposedly "professionals" and, since they are in the business day-in, day-out, they "should know" what to look for when they're buying a used item from a customer.

A "joe" off the street, on the other hand, has to rely on the comptetency of a "professional" seller such as this company to inform and advise him. In other words, the average joe buying equipment shouldn't necessarily be held up to as high a standard as the professional.

[Yes, I know there are exceptions where a buyer knows much, much more than a seller ever will!]

So, I beg to differ with the OP on this point. Just because the seller was incompetent in their purchase of the defective lens initially it's just not the morally correct thing to sell it off to a customer who is NOT as well informed/competent as the professional seller is suppose to be.

You'll note I've used the word "professional" a number of times in my posting to reflect that the seller does this as a business! The seller should simply disclose ALL the relevant information (pros and cons) on the product he/she's selling and allow the purchaser the absolute right to decide on whether to purchase the item, or not!

Grrrrrrrrrrrr.... there's simply NO justification for trying to shaft a purchaser in order to recover the loss that he should accept the responsibility for!

ABSOLUTELY NONE!

But, I realize that "I may well be asking far, far too much from some organizations whose main agenda is profit, profit, profit regardless of what's right or wrong!"

Nuff said!

Cheers

[Andre Noble]

Just wanted to say that I finally bought a used 72XL from Calumet rental department for last month in excellent shape.

I have wanted a Schneider 72XL since 1999.

The 72XL is my first Schneider large format lens. Very sharp at f11.

[Mike1234]

I bought a 150mm Nikkor-SW from a "reputable and well-respected" company a few weeks ago (one which is spoken VERY highly of on this and other forums). It was a very nice lens except for some very tiny scratches in the front coatings that weren't mentioned in their description. They accepted the return and refunded me (minus shipping both ways plus a hit of $39 from the actual selling price). It also took them longer than two weeks AFTER they received the lens to credit my account and this only after me reminding them twice.

Later I bought a 270mm Tele Xenar from a different company (not as well respected here or elsewhere). It was cosmetically almost like new (gorgeous) BUT there was obvious separation in the rear cell group they they didn't mention in their ad. They accepted the return and refunded the actual purchase amount plus shipping to me. They didn't refund return shipping but they also didn't rip me off otherwise and the refund was transferred in three days plus they stayed in contact with me throughout the process so I never had to wonder what's going on.

Tha latter was Adorama. I refuse to name the former because it would only start a flame war.