Possible considerations when pruchasing "renewed" merchandise from Amazon or others

[zakslm]

I purchased an EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM lens from the Amazon Renewed Store at an attactive price last spring.  I did so after reading the reviews of the merchant and merchandise carefully and decided to purchase the "renewed" lens.  I did so after considered purchasing the same lens from the Canon USA Refurbished website or buying a used one from KEH or B&H.  I've bought Canon refurbished products from Canon USA and from B&H and used products from KEH, B&H and other sources and been satisfied with my purchases.

I was reading a thread in the Nikon forum where a someone was debating if they should keep or return a costly lens purchased from Amazon as a renewed product.  The poster suspected and later confirmed the lens was "gray market" and not originally intended for sale in the USA.  The poster returned the lens because he believed Nikon USA wouldn't service it should a problem arise after the seller's warranty expired.  I believe Canon USA's policy is similar with regard to gray market goods.  Year ago, I considered buying a gray market EOS 5 (I think it had some minor advantages vs. the A2E) but decided not to do so becasue of Canon's policy.  

The lens I purchased arrived in the proper Canon box; well wrapped in bubble wrap and cushioned in another layer of bubble wrap.  It did have a Canon multi-lingual instruction sheet that looks like it has never been unfolded.  The lens was in pristine condition and looked brand new.  It works flawlessly and the images are are good.  In other words, I'm satisfied with the lens.  

I became curious and opened up the instruction sheet that came with the EF-S 10-18mm and compared it to the folded instruction sheet that came with a new EF 50 f/1.8 STM that I purchased.  The sheet that came with the 50mm has "Canon USA, Inc., Mellville, NY...." printed at the top and the EF-S 10-18 had "Canon Inc., Tokyo, Japan...." printed at the top.  I'm assuming this is evidence that my lens (or atleast my instruction sheet) was originally intended for sale outside of USA/Canada and is gray market.

I'm not concerned because I think/hope that if my lens requires service while I own it, I should be able to find another place to get it repaired.  Also, the lens wasn't that expensive - certainly much less expensive than the lens discussed on the Nikon Forum thread.  

My point is that although I may have purchased the lens anyway, I should have known/considered that the lens was or may be a gray market lens when making my decision.  Others should be aware of this as well if considering purchasing "renewed" merchandise from Amazon or elsewhere and make thier decison accordingly.

 

[Mark Keefer]

The lens will probably give you years of service. I think Amazon should disclose or require third party sellers to disclose if Merchandise is gray market. The whole idea of gray market stinks. The manufacturer should stand behind their products regardless, and if the issue is Canon USA or NIKON USA footing the bill, they should get reimbursed from the Parent company. This is the age of jet travel. Sigh. Tamron had me jumping through hoops over a warranty firmware update on a lens that had been introduced the prior year. They insisted I had to show a receipt to prove when and where I bought it. The lens came with a 6 year warranty. It had only been on the market for a year. Seemed to me they were just looking for a way not to honor the free repair. That is the last Tamron product I ever bought. At least Sigma has a USB puck you can do your own firmware updates. 

Edited October 26, 2023 by Mark Keefer