Cleaning marks / scratches

I bought a “MINT” multicoated Fujinon NW 135mm from Japan. It looked immaculate from outside, though later I checked from inside into the light and saw horrendous amount of cleaning scratches. Then I saw them from outside too when lens was on the camera outdoors.

 

I know that scratches like that don’t affect images in many situations, especially when used with the hood. But I tend to replace this one as I don’t want to be constantly in the need to use the hood and in doubt of whether I get the most from it or not.

 

Opinions?

 

Yep. That looks bad.

 

I don't know if we're looking at a loss of AR coating or what, but that's not a 'mint' lens.

I'd return it as it does not live up to the description.

I bought a “MINT” multicoated Fujinon NW 135mm from Japan

 

Although it's certainly true that there can be a lot 'wrong' with lens surfaces before it shows up all the time in use, this is NOT a "mint" lens and I'd return it like a dead raccoon if I had bought it.

 

I suppose there is some factor of how expensive it was. If you paid full going-price for it, then no question, however.

Thank you for your responses.

 

Lens coating looked perfect on the outside, even with UV light I did not spot anything first. I somehow was too relaxed to check it properly which was not very clever. Now its too late, I even left positive feedback earlier. I wrote a message to the seller, but not expecting much.

 

This is one of those Japanese ebay sellers that has “MINT”, “TOP MINT+”, “EXC++++” and other scam description categories. I’ll just be asking for photos taken from inside into the light next time ..... it’s a shame Fujinons are rare in the EU.

 

It costed 220EUR/250USD and customs missed it somehow so I did not have to have to pay the usual 25% on top.... So not a huge damage indeed. I’ll keep it for spare shutter and will look for another lens.

You might try telling your story to eBay if you don't get a response from the vendor to your note.

As the old joke goes "It couldn't hoit"

Looks like real coating (low) damage, not an issue at all. I use to shoot with a fungused lens and still try to see how or where the image is affected. Same with coating damage.

But I think it's just a scam. Any pro vendor know how to check a lens, and how to describe it... some know that missing a couple words means way more profit. Or funny, some overdescribe the items with words like "... it doesn't affect image quality... ". I have seen real paperweights described this way..

I have suffered some scams like this one. "Mint" is mint, and this is not mint. It have obvious damage (relevant or not).

Some sellers know that buyers in most cases will accept this kind of deception to avoid extra costs or problems, specially if they are located overseas. Sadly, if the buyer accept, the seller will be proned to do it again and again.

So I think you are acting wisely. But please leave a comment on the platform to let others know about this seller. And think that another typical trick is to ask you to contact the seller before posting a negative comment ... so they have a second chance to maintain a high percentage of positive experiences despite being deceiving their customers.

Edited January 4, 2021 by jose_angel

When you buy from overseas of fleabay, they are betting that you don't want to pay the return shipping.

IMO, people don't want to look too closely because so many lenses have fungus, scratches or some kind of subtle damage. I always do a penlight test through the lens. I also use a moderate power hand lens to inspect the outer surfaces under bright light, looking for scratches. Frankly, the only lenses that really pass these tests completely are the ones I bought new. They've lived under filters their entire lives. OTOH, I do have some used ones that are pretty good, but I was very fussy in buying/keeping them. I've only had one experience buying direct from a Japanese vendor but the lens was excellent and exactly as described.