"Never Buy These Used": Camera lenses

[lex_jenkins]

Ya just can't make this crap up. Only the pros on teh interweb can come up with these jewels...<p>

 

#1 on the AOL/Shopping "Never Buy These Used" list: Camera lenses...<p>

 

<i>"SLR camera lenses should never be bought used without a return guarantee or warranty. Lenses are the most

expensive part of a camera, because that's where the quality of your images is determined. One tiny mark or

scratch on the glass will show up in all your photos. A simple misalignment will cause your photos to be

chronically out of focus. If you're serious about photography, buy high-quality, new lenses."</i><p>

 

<a

href="http://shopping.aol.com/electronics?ncid=AOLCOMMshopDYNLprim0001&icid=100214839x1209519500x1200543852<p>"

><b>The rest of the list</b></a>, if you can stomach the dopiness and infotainment from the Land of D'oh!<p>

 

I hope some folks actually take this kind of disinformation seriously. It'll drive down the prices for folks who

are capable of thinking.

[BrianS1664879711]

Is this really disinformation... versus misinformation, or malarkey?

 

There are a couple of ways of looking at this kind of advise. For buyers of camera lenses it reduces the competition

and maybe the price. For sellers... it reduces the competition and, unfortunately, maybe the price. I guess how one

looks at it depends on which side of the cash register one is standing!

[vaantique]

So, by their reasoning you shouldn't buy any old camera?

 

I have a wall of cameras that would disagree, let me introduce you to my friend the Argus C3, his telephoto has fungus but the pictures are spectacular!

[btmuir]

but i saved a bundle on used drawers ...

[gertle]

First I wouldn't buy any lens without some form of return/guarantee/warranty, and I hope it does drive down the cost

of used lenses. If it weren't for the used market I'd still only have the 28-80 kit lens that came with my elan2 and not

the other gems I've come across.

[Hector Javkin]

Most of the rest of the list contains more accurate, if superfluous, advice. Do they really have to tell us that used light bulbs might not last? The suggestion against buying used microphones and loudspeakers is appropriate, unless you have very good ears (for the loudspeakers) or test equipment (for the microphones).

 

Regarding buying used lenses, I have worried about buying those that have internal motors, for focusing or vibration reduction, and are labeled "Bargain" by KEH, even though KEH is known to understate the condition of what they sell.

[starvy]

lex, you should keep quiet about these things. some of us are still trying to pick up older gear cheap. if you shout from the roof top the nice aol folks (like my 77 year old friend ken) would eventually hear you. then i won't be able to afford the stuff anymore.

[mike dixon]

<i>Do they really have to tell us that used light bulbs might not last?</i><P>

Does anyone even sell used light bulbs? Maybe they should have put "don't buy used toothbrushes" on the list, as well.

[Hector Javkin]

<i>Does anyone even sell used light bulbs?</i> Not anymore. The used light bulb market might have shown promise, given the current economy, but the article took all the air out of it.

[iancoxleigh]

Take your favourite lens, stick a piece of sticky note on the front element and have a look through your viewfinder.

 

See? . . . Now, stop worry about that tiny scratch or air bubble.

[mark_brown14]

I recently bought two Takumar K-mount lenses for $15 the lot. The 28mm just needed the front element retaining ring tightened to stop the rattling but the 80-200 had what looked like dog vomit over the rear element. I hosed it down and did a little fiddly stuff with Q-Tips and now they look fine. Did I do wrong? Should I ask for my money back? Because until I read that piece I thought I'd scored a couple of gems.

[jpo3136b]

Okay, if you bought a lens with old dog vomit on it; they should have paid you the $15!

 

Or, you could keep the lens, and return the dog vomit. Or, you could have kept the dog vomit on there, and started a new

trend in abstract art. That made my day. Thanks. J.

[jpo3136b]

Okay, if you bought a lens with old dog vomit on it; they should have paid you the $15!

 

Or, you could keep the lens, and return the dog vomit. Or, you could have kept the dog vomit on there, and started a new

trend in abstract art. That made my day. Thanks. J.

[lovcom_photo]

I would never buy a used lens...I mean think about it...you don't know if the prior owner pointed the lens at naked chicks, gay people or (gulp) liberals....see what I mean?!?

[Brian]

I think those lists are just stuff they make up on the spot to fill the spaces between adverts. Their saving grace is that hardly anybody reads them. (Except you, Lex. You need to get out more.)

[rashed]

I like this thread although I never bought a second hand camera or lenses, the question for me, I do not know how good quality is some of the lenses I buy like the sigma lenses.

 

Thank you for this thread and wishing you all of the best

[matthew_newton]

That list is like statistics, 78% of it is made up on the spot.

 

Only if I can get a screaming deal am I willing to buy something without a limited guarantee, at least over the internet. If I can't see and handle the lens I have no way of knowning if the lens is in the condition you actually describe it, so if you won't let me return it for a refund if I am not happy I am not going to buy it from you. I have gotten a lens or two through ebay where the aperature stuck badly, that sort of thing and it was never in the description.

 

Used light bulbs? Is that like buying used motor oil? Used prophylactics?

[gman]

I can't even remember the last time I bought a NEW lens. I think it was 1980 or something like that. I usually buy from my local dealer or KEH, and there is always the return option.

I think my wife likes that I am thrifty. But, if I ever gave her "used" lingerie...I would be dead meat!

[j_sevigny]

I have an ancient Nikkor 24mm, 2.8 that I bought for $50 that has a little nick knocked out of the front element. It doesn't make a darned bit of difference. At f8 or 5.6 it's the sharpest lens I own.

 

I have a Nikkor 28mm, 3.5 that's all beaten up because Mexico City's AP office used it for 15 years. I recently had to reglue the rubber around the focusing ring, but otherwise, it's fine.

 

Thank god for used lenses.

[lex_jenkins]

These lists are dopey for the same reason most "news" is infuriating. They mix in a smattering of fact and

surround it with nonsense. Unfortunately, the blogosphere indicates too many people swallow the entire mess

without considering the details and context. It's the classic tactic used by fear mongerers like the Center For

Scaring the Crap Out of People For No Particular Reason, with this month's scare: <i>Coffee! Can it kill?</i>

Next month, <i>Wine! Healthy or of the devil?</i> Coming soon, <i>Pet dander and brain damage!</i><p>

 

Here's a breakdown of the tactic.<p>

 

<b>"SLR camera lenses should never be bought used without a return guarantee or warranty."</b> Okay, consumerism

101, most readers are now on board. Credibility is assumed.<p>

 

<b>"Lenses are the most expensive part of a camera..."</b> Uh-oh. Has this writer seen the prices of dSLRs, or

is he/she using a 20 year old copy of Pop Photo? Never mind, tho', minor chink in the credibility armor, let's

soldier on...<p>

 

<b>"...because that's where the quality of your images is determined."</b> That's going to baffle the crowd

who've been told that megapixels are everything. Now we're beyond credibility and into cognitive dissonance.

(Which, by the way, is a good thing. Cognitive dissonance teaches frustrated consumers to rely on "experts"

rather than common sense and

personal investigation. "Just tell me what to buy already!")<p>

 

<b>"One tiny mark or scratch on the glass will show up in all your photos."</b> Blatant nonsense, but it sounds

credible, even to many photographers. Notice the number of folks on photo.net and elsewhere who fret over minor

marks on the front element or a few dust specks. It <i>seems</i> credible. But it's wrong.<p>

 

<b>"A simple misalignment will cause your photos to be chronically out of focus."</b> Not entirely true.

Misaligned and de-centered elements can affect sharpness, but usually only along one edge or corner. Rather than

informing readers, this type of generalization causes people to look to the wrong causes for problems with their

photos. The usual reason for unsharp photos is poor technique.<p>

 

<b>"If you're serious about photography, buy high-quality, new lenses."</b> Profit! And this is usually where

this type of consumer oriented infotainment is heading: <i>Don't trust your own judgment. Trust us. We'll tell

you what to do or not do. And, by the way, be sure to support our sponsors by buying only new stuff. (Until our

sponsorship changes and we'll then tell you how to shop smart for used items.)</i><p>

 

Do you suppose it's a coincidence that the lens featured in the AOL list is a readily identifiable brand and

model? They could have chosen a less obvious brand and model, or simply turned the lens slightly to make it less

obvious. But it's the same type of packaging technique used by television news, which will do a quick

"news-feature" segment on an issue that, coincidentally, will be the subject of an hour long special on the same

network immediately following the news.<p>

 

But, as usual, I digress...

[patrick j dempsey]

So where exactly can I buy high quality new lenses for an Olympus OM, Minolta MD, or Canon FD? KEH offers a guarantee and a 60 day warranty... maybe they can show me the way to these new high quality lenses for the camera bodies they guarantee. And please folks, don't use your used lenses with minor scratches.... send them all to me... I LIKE low quality chronically out of focus images. He forgot to mention fungus and the poisonous mercury batteries! And rotten neck straps! And peculiar odors! And how dust in the viewfinder effects quality of the final image, as well as how old meters are never ever ever accurate!

[photo_dark]

Wow i feel stupider after reading that. You honestly can't make this stuff up.

 

Why are soccer mom's (who buy car seats and kid's bike helmets, mattresses, and bikinis) being targeted with the same article as semi-pro or professional photographers (who buy 70-200L lenses).

 

Thank you lex for proving what i've always believed all along.... yes, I am smarter than the average human being ;)

[charlie_goodwin]

Why would anyone read anything on AOL?

[JDMvW]

I don't understand the reference to dog vomit. Any pet owner knows it's CAT vomit on your lens.

 

Paula Poundstone used to have a great routine about Bill, Hillary, and their cat Socks along the line of whose

turn it was when the cat started to hack in the night.

 

"I'll hum Hail to the Chief, Dear"....

[chrise_boris]

lenses are generally safer to buy used than anything else really since most people make sure their lenses do not get damaged. I have bought numerous used medium format lenses and they came in bargain, excellent or mint condition and they were all flawless in terms of optics and function although a few of them are more than 20 years old. the only lenses i would be wary of buying used are lenses which have a reputation of bad quality control e g the canon 24-70mm L.