When is an an enlarger lens unusable?

[sanchi heuser]

Hello,

I just bought an Nikon EL-Nikkor 5.6/150mm enlarger lens from Ebay.
Seller said in the description that the glass is very clean. When the lens arrived, the front and rear glassses
were spread all over with small scratches.

The lens was shipped without caps packed in a little plastic bag wrapped with a small piece of bubble plastic and one page of a newspaper alltogether put into a
'USPS Flat Rate Mailing Envelope' :eek:
Now the seller wants to assure me that this scratches were no problem,
here is what he has written to me yesterday:

"Hello I'm happy to hear the lens finally arrived, and sad to hear you are not happy
with it. I really feel that this lens was very nice and very clean, especially considering
how old it is.The glass is very clean with nearly no dust at all. The dust is what causes the most problems with enlarging lenses.

Please try to clean the marks off of the glass with a lens cleaning cloth. They look like scratches,but they are mostly cleaning marks.
Also this lens has a high quality protective coating which may have some light cleaning marks in it but will have no problems with making reproductions.
Please test the lens and if you are still interested to ship it back do so.

I would really like you to keep this lens and work something out with you since the shipping time was so long and I really do believe this lens will impress you if you use it."


This sounds odd to me.
Now what are your opinions?
Is that true what the gentleman writes or just blah blah?
What makes a lens unusable?

I wanted to use this lens to enlarge 4x5 negatives with my Omega D5-XL
enlarger. Why should I use a defective lens after I made all that effort
to get my 4x5 negatives?
I cleaned the glasses very carefully with Zeiss lens cleaning set, of course the scratches were not magically disapeared, why should they?


BTW, what does it all have to do with the long shipping time
from US to Germany ( 5 and a half weeks after payment:rolleyes: )?
And what has it to do with the age of the lens - "considering how old is it" ?
I have an old 65mm Linhof Super Angulon and there is no scratch on the glass!

Yes I'm happy :)

Andi

[Juergen Sattler]

Clearly, the seller was misleading in his/her description of the lens and the seller is now giving you the run-around. The real question is how expensive it would be to send the lens back - I assume the seller will not pay for return shipping?! If this were a US sale, I would certainly advice you to give the lens back for a full refund. It is perfectly possible that the scratches have no impact on your enlargements, but you paid and are entitled to a clean, scratch-free lens.

[Michael Graves]

When is it unusable? When you don't like the images you get from it. I used to have a Nikkor that was scratched up as you describe. It gave the nicest "sharp-but-soft" images I ever printed. After I got a Rodenstock 150, I sold it, and I've suffered from "seller's remorse" ever since. Mine looked like it was cleaned with a Brillo pad.

[ic-racer]

Coincidentally I got a lens on ebay with the same condition just a few days ago. I was pretty upset because I bid top dollar. For me it is a price problem because I have quite a few 'junk' enlarger lenses I got in the 20-30 dollar range which perform fine when stopped down even though they have lens separation, residual fungus damage and the notorious cleaning marks.

I got the seller to refund 1/2 the price I paid, which is what I thought this otherwise clean lens was worth if I had known the scratches were there.

In your case:
1) I'd be upset if it was not as described
2) It should work fine stopped down
3) If it was $35 then that is what it is worth anyway (in spite of #1 above :) )
4) If you paid more than that, try to get some money back or send the lens back and try again.

[Thebes]

Given the relative cost of an excellent condition enlarger lens vs the cost of the supplies you will use, I think its pretty clear you want a lens without scratches. If the lens was described as "very clean" and it has scratches, thats a problem and the seller is dishonest. I would expect a fairly modern lens like the el nikkor to generally not have such wear... I might expect it from a very old process lens, something thats honestly an antique, but even then I would expect the seller to disclose the damage.

[Henry Ambrose]

I would ask for a refund, unless you paid much less than market value for the lens. Going forward, be sure to ask specifically if the glass has any marks of any kind.

[sanchi heuser]

Hi,

thanks for your opinions. I also thought that the term "very clean glass"
meant free from scratches, haze, fungus, undamaged coating etc..
Only the answer from the seller made me a little bit uncertain, if the term
meant eventually something other and I was wrong.

The good part is that some days after purchasing this lens,
I found here in the forum a good Schneider enlarging lens that was in
a phantastic condition and worth every dollar. Thanks again to the
nice gentleman who sold it to me, worked everything out and send it over the pond:cool: .
Every time I bought stuff here in the forum, the sellers were very friendly and send excellent equipment. Thanks to all them. I think this forum is a much better place to buy gear than Ebay.
Not everything is easy available in Europe, so one has to look sometimes over the horizon.

Back to the Nice-Lens-Guy.
I think I demand a full refund for the Nikon-EL. From my point of view, the seller has to pay all the costs, because the description was false + the packaging was very unsufficient and led eventually to the damage.

The costs for reshipping to the US with registered letter are exactly 8,05 € (~ $10.56).
Of course the lens will be put in a little box and glass secured against friction.

If I knew what poor performance he/she will deliver, I had never even thought of buying.

What do you think, is it necessary to document the condition of the lens
and the packaging material with photos? I have no digital camera, GPS phone with
camera is only means:o .

Andi

[bob carnie]

Did you clean the lens and still find scratches? I mean real scratches or are you seeing streaks on the lens.
Old lenses are hard to keep in mint condition if they are in a working darkroom, I would expect scratch/streak free only from a unused darkroom.
There are some cleaners and lens tools to keep the lens surface clean and maybe this is all that is needed.

[sanchi heuser]

Bob,

that was the first thing I did after some hours of acclimatization
to room temperature. I used a lens cleaning set from Zeiss for it.
Some blurs were cleaned away that's right, but the scratches stayed.
And they are real scratches.

One thing is very clear: it's not my job as a byer to accept the obvious
faults of the seller, here inaccurate description and very poor packaging
and than to do the best of a bad job.
Did you ever hear that someone put a lens in a paper envelope without lens caps? And when this should be a very clean lens, how does the seller call a good lens?
Maybe very very very very very clean (and of course nice) lens?:rolleyes:

Andi

[Sal Santamaura]

...I think I demand a full refund for the Nikon-EL. From my point of view, the seller has to pay all the costs, because the description was false + the packaging was very unsufficient and led eventually to the damage.

The costs for reshipping to the US with registered letter are exactly 8,05 € (~ $10.56).
Of course the lens will be put in a little box and glass secured against friction...is it necessary to document the condition of the lens and the packaging material with photos? I have no digital camera, GPS phone with camera is only means...You are correct -- the seller is fully resonsible for this fraud. Immediately document the situation, including photos from your phone, to eBay. Lately eBay has been firmly supportive of buyers; it will undoubtedly take what you paid from the seller's PayPal account until resolution is achieved. If eBay requires you to send the lens back, you must not be made to pay the 8,05 € cost. Should the seller demand their lens back, your refund needs to be the total of whatever you originally paid plus 8,05 €.

Be prompt and firm. If eBay doesn't react as I predict, and you funded the PayPal payment using a credit card, immediately dispute the charge with your credit card issuing bank.

eBay is a fairly decent marketplace, but requires eternal vigilance to control the minority of fraudulent sellers. Best wishes for a successful outcome!

[Jim Noel]

Perhaps it is a case of the seller does not know what a really good lens will do.

[Brian Ellis]

Lots of incorrect or misleading information here. "Cleaning marks" is usually a euphemism for scratches or other damage to the glass. Dust inside the lens isn't the main problem with enlarger lenses (or any other lens for that matter). Lenses aren't manufactured in clean rooms. All lenses, even brand new out of the box, will have some dust inside but that isn't generally a problem. OTOH multiple scratches on the glass usually are a problem.

I'd return the lens even if it works properly if for no other reason than the fact that these problems will seriously affect its resale value if you ever want to sell it.

[sanchi heuser]

Lots of incorrect or misleading information here. "Cleaning marks" is usually a euphemism for scratches or other damage to the glass. Dust inside the lens isn't the main problem with enlarger lenses (or any other lens for that matter). Lenses aren't manufactured in clean rooms. All lenses, even brand new out of the box, will have some dust inside but that isn't generally a problem. OTOH multiple scratches on the glass usually are a problem.

I'd return the lens even if it works properly if for no other reason than the fact that these problems will seriously affect its resale value if you ever want to sell it.

Brian,

Yes I wrote to the seller today
that I want full refund, purchase cost and all shipping costs.

I made him clear that he didn't state the damage and/or
packaged wrong what eventuelly caused the damages - in the case the lens was as good as he "feels" when he packaged it. Now he can choice for himself
what mistake he prefers:p .

Andi

[Kevin Crisp]

Brian is right. Cleaning marks are scratches that a seller doesn't want to call scratches. If the listing didn't mention the cleaning marks or scratches ask for your money back. A Nikkor that is scratched up isn't worth much since nice ones can be so easily found.

I have learned on ebay that it always pays to ask about anything not mentioned in the listing. Is the lens "free of dust"? Does that mean it has no haze? No fungus? If you ask those specific questions before you bid and the seller denies it you're in a strong position if you find out they were not truthful. The definition of "clean glass" is pretty flexible.