Snowflake like inclusions in lens?

Discussion in 'Accessories' started by sassia_niederste_hollenberg, Mar 26, 2004.

  1. I bought a used lens on ebay and found out it has 7-8 snowflake like
    inclusions ( looks like ice crystals ) in between lens glasses. I
    consider this a defect...Does anybody has experince with that and
    can tell me where it came from? Thanks, Sassia
     
  2. Here is an image of the defect...
    http://www.photo.net/photo/2235951

    Thanks for helping out.
     
  3. It's fungus. Use the search function to find a ton of messages about this topic.
     
  4. It is a very serious defect.
     
  5. It's fungus, absolutely, and it's so prominently visible that your seller cannot claim that he/she "didn't notice." You have every right to rescind the sale. The alternative is to have the lens cleaned (probably $200 or more) and have the seller pay for this service.
     
  6. Absolutely, return it for a full refund. It's a bad case of fungus.
     
  7. I don't think that the seller is in any way required to accept your return. Caveat emptor. If
    they are honorable then they will.
     
  8. Andrew, it's called "fraud," and it's against the law. If the buyer wants to, he can take the seller to court and he will win. Unfortunately, this is highly inconvenient in cases like this.

    Sassia has a whole series of possible recourses here through ebay itself, but the final trump card is to sic the FBI's Internet Fraud people on the seller. In cases like this the threat of this kind of intervention has been known to elicit positive resolutions to issues like this.

    I know about this kind of situation because I myself was sold a lens on ebay last year that had fungus that the seller did not disclose. I went through the ebay internal channels, which are based mostly on the hope that a seller will not want "negative feedback." This didn't really help much. I learned in the process about the possible intervention of the FBI, and heard of similar cases where this was helpful.

    Fortunately, the seller, whose resistance to negating the sale was apparently due to his financial distress, decided to do the right thing, sort of, and we compromised on splitting the cost of cleaning the fungus off of the lens. With cheaper lenses this iwold not be worth the trouble, but this was a 400mm. f5.6 ED tele (I actually posted about this in the recent "400mm. lens" thread), so I felt that spending the additional $100 was a sacrifice I was willing to make. The lens turned out to be terrific.

    The last bit of advice I would have for Sassia is not to threaten ebay-related "negative feedback" or to provide negative feedback prematurely. Exhaust all other avenues of resolution first.
     
  9. Thank you all for the answers. I did not know about fungus in lenses and learned something new. The good news : the seller asked me to return the lens and will decide then if it is a defect. If the seller decides it is so ...they will then refund my money...and I agree with you on a lens like yours I would have done the same and cleaned it . This one I can buy new for 220$ ...so no cleaning for $200 or so... we will see how this is ending and I will keep you posted . In the mean time I will look for an other lens and make sure to ask if there are scratches, dents, fungus etc...
    I hope I dont need to have mayor issues with it. Thank you again. I love this forum...lots to learn:)
     
  10. WELL SAID DOUGLAS
    <br>Too many people are convinced by epay that feedback/small ebay payout are the only avenues available to them.Yes it is fraud and can be prosecuted no matter what the buying circumstances.
    <br>Glad it's working out well for you Sassia
     
  11. We don't know what the eBay description said about the lens. Selling a lens with fungus does not itself constitute fraud. The eBay listing may have represented that there was no fungus, in which case it would be easier to mount a claim of fraud, but quite possibly it was simply silent about the presence or absence of fungus. If no misrepresentation was made the rule of caveat emptor is likely to apply. In this case perhaps the fungus was so awful that a mere omission to mention it would support a claim of fraud, but I think that is a stretch. It is much easier if there is an affirmative misrepresentation to support the element of "scienter" (guilty knowledge) in a claim for fraud. A seller could always claim a "mere" omission was due to simple ignorance.

    This is why it is a good practice to always make an "ask the seller a question" inquiry before bidding on an item like this for the purpose of eliciting a clear statement from the seller about the presence or absence of the common defects. Something like: "Does the lens have any fungus, haze, element separation, significant dust between elements, scratches, coating marks or defects (including "cleaning marks")? Are there any dents, and to your knowledge has it ever been dropped, immersed in water, etc.? Is there anything else that you would want to know as a bidder for this lens that is not mentioned in the listing?" If you have an honest seller, you will learn more about the item before bidding. If you have a dishonest seller, he or she would be likely to make an affirmative misrepresentation or omission in response to this kind of question, and then you would be closer to making your case for fraud.

    Also inquire and agree on a return policy before you bid. Contrary to what was stated in another post, you do not have a right to unilaterally "rescind" a sale absent a return policy stated in the item listing or otherwise agreed to between you and the seller.

    It's prudent to think that after you send someone your money for an eBay purchase, they have your money and you have the item and your best and perhaps only recourse will be to leave negative feedback (not ideal). Absent real fraud (again, getting a worse lens than you expected is probably not going to cut it--and unscrupulousness is not the same as fraud) and with no return policy agreed upon, it really is caveat emptor and the seller could just decide not to respond to you at all.
     
  12. Sorry, but I investigated these "fraud" issues quite thoroughly for my own case. If the seller indicated in any way that the lens was in "good condition" and was not "as is," etc., then a major problem like fungus MUST be disclosed, or else it's considered misrepresentation and hence fraud.

    Sellers who want to get around this usually will use a term like "haze" or something else that is vague but indicates at least in general fashion that something is amiss. The implied warranty for ANY item suggests that it is suitable for the purpose for which it was intended, and any photographic expert would testify that fungus renders a lens close to worthless.

    In any event, it sounds like Sassia is likely to be get the case resolved without court action, thank goodness.
     
  13. It is fair to say that all fraud involves misrepresentation, but not all misrepresentations constitute fraud. I suppose that it depends on what the listing said, who the seller is, the laws of the jurisdictions involved and other factors. A negligent misrepresentatation could be false without carrying the scienter/intent necessary for fraud. Unless the seller had a special duty toward the buyer (a fiduciary relationship, a statutory duty, etc.), then a mere omission probably would not amount to a misrepresentation. A breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and fitness could support a breach of contract or tort claim, but maybe not fraud, and the result might depend on who the seller is (e.g., is he/she in the business of selling lenses, etc.). The law in this area is not consistent from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the particular facts are very important, and the aggrieved party may not be the most objective judge of how it all fits together.

    I don't mean to continue this debate needlessly. What everyone can probably agree on are the practicalities of the situation and that the best time to deal with these unscrupulous sellers is *before the money changes hands*. I think most people would find it impracticable to try to redress something like this by pursuing a fraud claim through the legal system. A lawyer would expend $200 of your money with in an hour or so of starting to pursue the cause, if you are lucky. If you place any significant value on your time, you would soon expend more than $200 of it purusing this. The authorities are busy hunting the sellers of nonexistent plasma TV sets and such and I think would take little interest in the one-off case of the moldy lens. So before bidding on something like this, get the seller to make affirmative representations that there are *not* any of the common problems, and reach an agreement on a return policy. The character of these communications will often help you judge the seller's integrity. Assume that caveat emptor will be the applicable standard for all practical purposes. Assume that there are unscrupulous types and sharp practitioners out there who walk a fine line, yet face little practical likelihood of ever being held accountable for fraud.
     
  14. Following is the exact discription of the lens....BUT I have again to say the lens is on the way back to the seller and they will decide if it is a defect( if yes they will return the money)... since it said in the item discription MINT ... I dont think the above fungus ( see pciture ) will fall under MINT ?

    Item Description
    This Canon EF 28-105mm Ultrasonic f/3.5-4.5 lens is in mint condition.

    The auction includes front and rear caps.

    The ultrasonic motor makes the lens very quiet and fast when focusing. This lens

    works with any Canon EOS camera.

    Thanks for all your input and I will keep you uptodate with the next steps.
     
  15. The seller did not use the lens for a year before shipping it. She did not take the filter off and did not see the fungus. The money will be returned to me this week:) Thanks for all the great support and input. I did learn a lesson to be specific when buying something used!
     

Share This Page