When I saw this lens (Item number: 7534753230) on Ebay with it's mangled filter flange and then saw that the seller had rated it "Excellent" I just had to ask them how they came up with the rating.
They replied"
"Thank you for taking time to ask a question. If this lens did not have a bent filter ring it would be rated as at least Mint. So anything less than Excellent would not give proper justice to this fine piece of pristine optics and well-tuned mechanics!!!"
What a bunch of BS.
I bought a lens from them a few years ago and I agree, their rating system is unique, to say the least.
Now you guys tell me. I guess I'll be wondering until I get the lens they're shipping me.
My opinion: Mint-never used, still in box. Excellent-Used a few times, no defects whatsoever. Very good- used with care but used, no defects. Good-used quite a bit but fully fuctional, normal wear. Fair-used and more than normal wear but nothing broken. Who cares about anything lower on the chart. Mint and excellent are the two most abused words on eBay.
Leonard, I think you're forgetting "rare". This seems to mean that there are no more than three other ones listed this week.
Ernest, I think you're forgetting about the photographers who advertise their own prints on eBay and list them as "RARE."
At least they are honest. They also note the inability to take a filter.
I think the starting bid is way high for the condition. A sell price in this vicinity might be okay.
I own a 90 mm nikkor f4.5 which I dropped in a parking lot 11 years ago which mangled the rear flange worse than what you see there. The lens works fine but then I can put on any filters, compendiums etc I want on the FRONT - not so on the rear which is intentionally not threaded by Nikon.
I am fairly confident this lens on EBay works fine but is hampered from taking filters and accessories.
So no, I wouldn 't buy it as I expect to do things that this couldn't accomodate. As for excellent? rating . . . . . Par for the course for anything that b0rders on subjective interpretation.
There is a problem which is suggested by a dent. A lens can be "strained" which means that the mount has squeezed it. This affects the image. You can check for this problem by putting the lens beween polarizers. The presence of a pattern indicates strain. Not every dented lens assembly is defective, but it would be sensible to avoid a dropped lens unless it has been checked..
Saw the same ad and what Ernest says occurred to me. A Rolleiflex that shows a dent in certain areas-what might have been effected and so on.
I saw a Contax Zeiss 28mm lens listed on eBay. The photo showed it had a UV filter on it. The copy read "Famous Carl Zeiss 28/2.8 lens. Often referred to as the Sky 1A Lens!"
I kid you not.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks