Got a bad one myself, recently. Thought I was getting a nice silvernose
75-150, described as "like new". Diaphragm didn't work at all. Hazy internal
elements. Dented lens hood. The seller promptly and politely refunded all my
money, including shipping!
---
Scott Gomez
-----Original Message-----
From: Doggre@xxxxxxx [mailto:Doggre@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 23:42
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] First piece of junk from *Bay
Well, in marked contrast to the BEAUTIFUL lens I just received from Skip, I
also received today a DOG (no chocolate lab, either, dammit) from
guess*which*auction*site: a 50mm/1.4 with obvious and multiple scratches all
over the front element, and what looks to be small specs of fungus (or very
evenly distributed same-sized dust particles) inside. This lens was
described in the ad as "easily Ex++" and with "No marks on the glass".
Well,
that description was about as dishonest as I could imagine for THIS
particular lens. I would call this a $20 BARGAIN level lens, at best, for
which I bid $71.00. I've just e-mailed the seller my desire to return it
for
a full refund. My first real disappointment in about 30 deals on that big
site. I MIGHT consider keeping it IF he offers to send $50 of my $71
back...
But considering the deception, I really don't feel like accepting anything
less than ALL of it back. I'll let ya know.
Rich
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|