Just returned my 80-400mm VR AF-S lens

Started 11 months ago | Discussions
Al Giordano
Contributing MemberPosts: 804Gear list
Like?
Re: The right/proper way
In reply to Pradipta Dutta, 11 months ago

Pradipta Dutta wrote:

rjjr wrote:

Pradipta Dutta wrote:

TOF guy wrote:

Stores offer a money back warranty to attract consumers who are unusre about a purchase.

No. The purpose of money back warranty is not unsure purchases. But it is primarily to provide extras protection to the consumers for "buyer's satisfaction". Those who are buying the product and then returning it as the buyer's remorse kicks in is simply inappropriate and beats the original purpose of extra liberal return policy.

The customer was dissatisfied with the level of performance.  That is a perfectly legitimate reason for a return.

That is not correct. The OP himself said that the lens did perform better than his existing lens/TC combo. But he returned it because the price was too high. And he would've kept it if it was priced at $2K. Did he not know the price before buying?

They know exactly what they get into when they create these policies and they would change them if they were not coming ahead at the end of the day. Nothing wrong with that, they're working to make a profit. But to say that a person "cheats" if he takes advantage of terms is an exageratoin.

I should have called "abuser" as opposed to "cheaters". But is still does not change point. These guys/gals are using the return policy in a wrong way that is leading to those extra cost being passed to other regular consumers who doing it the right way.

Namecalling does nothing to validate your position.

There is no such thing as a "right" way.  If someone purchases something and they don't like it for whatever reason, there's absolutely nothing wrong with returning it in keeping with the return policy of the seller.

What many people do to determine whether or not a lens is right for them before buying is either read reviews from trusted experts or better yet, rent the lens out to give it a try themselves. What the OP did is a good example of impulse buy and reaction to buyer's remorse.

-- hide signature --

My Online Gallery - http://www.pbase.com/pradipta

I don't think you could be any more wrong in your assertion.

 Al Giordano's gear list:Al Giordano's gear list
Nikon D700 Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RBFresno
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,703Gear list
Like?
B&H's return Policy:
In reply to sjprintz, 11 months ago

sjprintz wrote:

I bought this about 1 week ago to use for wildlife on my D800e.  The reviews I read were quite good and I was looking forward to replacing my 70-200mm F2.8 + 1.7 TC with this lens.

I did some comparisons and the 80-400mm is a little sharper than my combination.  At 5.6, the 80-400mm is quite sharp and at F8, it's even better.  When I use the 70-200mm VR + TC, I usually stop down to F2.8 as well.

Unfortunately, the 80-400mm was just a little better in my opinion. Only when I pixel peeped did I really see the difference.  However, it was not enough of a difference to justify the $3000 cost of this lens (BTW I am saying $3000 because you need to buy a new foot for this lens.  Nikon should really give us a good support rather than a nice carrying case).   The lens is also quite wide and hard to hand hold for long.

I think if the lens were priced below $2000 it would be worth it to me.  It just seems overpriced for my needs.  Just my 2 cents.

SJPrintz

Hi!

FWIW, here is B&H's return policy.

BH Photo Returns

I've only returned one lens to them, a 25/2 Zeiss. The lens was fine, but it didn't have enough advantage f over the 14-24 or 24-70 for me to keep it.

At the time. I was so pi$$ed off about my Nkion 24-70 stiff zoom  ring ($600) repair, that I was emoted into trying to buy anything but Nikon.

I was so reluctant to return it, that I waited too long, and was charged a 15% restocking fee.

So I didn't feel too badly for B&H  having made a couple of hundred off of my delay...it might have been more than they would have made on my purchasing the lens!

RB

 RBFresno's gear list:RBFresno's gear list
Nikon D2H Nikon D3 Nikon D200 Nikon D4 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +16 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Frozencpu
Forum MemberPosts: 70
Like?
Re: B&H's return Policy:
In reply to RBFresno, 11 months ago

Buying and returning stuff if its $10 or $10000 is just a way of retail. The down side when it's online retail is you pay for return shipping. And as far as who makes or looses money, I don't think it's anyone's concern at all. They make more money after all that its silly even talking about the return policy.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rjjr
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,360
Like?
Re: Really?
In reply to paulski66, 11 months ago

paulski66 wrote:

So your argument is that the retailer just eats the cost of the lens?

You don't know that they put them back in stock to sell to someone else?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rjjr
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,360
Like?
Re: The right/proper way
In reply to Pradipta Dutta, 11 months ago

Pradipta Dutta wrote:

rjjr wrote:

Pradipta Dutta wrote:

TOF guy wrote:

Stores offer a money back warranty to attract consumers who are unusre about a purchase.

No. The purpose of money back warranty is not unsure purchases. But it is primarily to provide extras protection to the consumers for "buyer's satisfaction". Those who are buying the product and then returning it as the buyer's remorse kicks in is simply inappropriate and beats the original purpose of extra liberal return policy.

The customer was dissatisfied with the level of performance.  That is a perfectly legitimate reason for a return.

That is not correct. The OP himself said that the lens did perform better than his existing lens/TC combo. But he returned it because the price was too high. And he would've kept it if it was priced at $2K. Did he not know the price before buying?

Wrong, that is correct.  The OP was not satisfied with the improvement in performance over his current lenses.  The price/improvement ratio was dissatisfactory.  Still a perfectly good reason to return  it.

They know exactly what they get into when they create these policies and they would change them if they were not coming ahead at the end of the day. Nothing wrong with that, they're working to make a profit. But to say that a person "cheats" if he takes advantage of terms is an exageratoin.

I should have called "abuser" as opposed to "cheaters". But is still does not change point. These guys/gals are using the return policy in a wrong way that is leading to those extra cost being passed to other regular consumers who doing it the right way.

Namecalling does nothing to validate your position.

There is no such thing as a "right" way.  If someone purchases something and they don't like it for whatever reason, there's absolutely nothing wrong with returning it in keeping with the return policy of the seller.

What many people do to determine whether or not a lens is right for them before buying is either read reviews from trusted experts or better yet, rent the lens out to give it a try themselves. What the OP did is a good example of impulse buy and reaction to buyer's remorse.

What "many people" do means nothing.  There's absolutely no requirement for anyone to do that.

Besides, retailers also count on impulse buying for sales (the entire purpose of some types of marketing and salesman patter is based on it) so buyers remorse is simply the other side of that coin and is still a perfectly good reason to return an item.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
paulski66
Senior MemberPosts: 1,450Gear list
Like?
Re: Really?
In reply to rjjr, 11 months ago

rjjr wrote:

paulski66 wrote:

So your argument is that the retailer just eats the cost of the lens?

You don't know that they put them back in stock to sell to someone else?

God, I hope not. We just had some goob on here whining about getting a d600 with zero shutter actuations but which had a single fingerprint on the lcd screen cover, and you'd have thought someone broke his kneecaps. I mean, he started a thread complaining he was going to return the camera because it wasn't pristine, and some other human had might have touched it.

Seriously, between people returning perfectly good merchandise because of buyer's remorse and/or their inability to figure out what they want, and people screaming bloody murder at the thought that someone might have even looked at their gear in the shop, it's a wonder retailers don't go mad...

 paulski66's gear list:paulski66's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rjjr
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,360
Like?
Re: Really?
In reply to paulski66, 11 months ago

paulski66 wrote:

rjjr wrote:

paulski66 wrote:

So your argument is that the retailer just eats the cost of the lens?

You don't know that they put them back in stock to sell to someone else?

God, I hope not.

We just had some goob on here whining about getting a d600 with zero shutter actuations but which had a single fingerprint on the lcd screen cover, and you'd have thought someone broke his kneecaps. I mean, he started a thread complaining he was going to return the camera because it wasn't pristine, and some other human had might have touched it.

Seriously, between people returning perfectly good merchandise because of buyer's remorse and/or their inability to figure out what they want, and people screaming bloody murder at the thought that someone might have even looked at their gear in the shop, it's a wonder retailers don't go mad...

Yes it is.  That's one reason I left retail several decades ago and will never, ever go back.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Pradipta Dutta
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,745Gear list
Like?
Re: The right/proper way
In reply to Al Giordano, 11 months ago

Al Giordano wrote:

Pradipta Dutta wrote:

rjjr wrote:

The customer was dissatisfied with the level of performance.  That is a perfectly legitimate reason for a return.

That is not correct. The OP himself said that the lens did perform better than his existing lens/TC combo. But he returned it because the price was too high. And he would've kept it if it was priced at $2K. Did he not know the price before buying?

Namecalling does nothing to validate your position.

There is no such thing as a "right" way.  If someone purchases something and they don't like it for whatever reason, there's absolutely nothing wrong with returning it in keeping with the return policy of the seller.

What many people do to determine whether or not a lens is right for them before buying is either read reviews from trusted experts or better yet, rent the lens out to give it a try themselves. What the OP did is a good example of impulse buy and reaction to buyer's remorse.

I don't think you could be any more wrong in your assertion.

And you couldn't be any more ambiguous in your statement. What exactly is wrong that you are asserting? That people read reviews? People rent lenses?

-- hide signature --

My Online Gallery - http://www.pbase.com/pradipta

 Pradipta Dutta's gear list:Pradipta Dutta's gear list
Nikon D2X Nikon D3 Nikon D800 Nikon D3200 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
wisep01
Contributing MemberPosts: 691Gear list
Like?
Re: May be, I should've used the word "abuser" as opposed to "cheater"
In reply to Pradipta Dutta, 11 months ago

Pradipta Dutta wrote:

TOF guy wrote:

Stores offer a money back warranty to attract consumers who are unusre about a purchase.

No. The purpose of money back warranty is not unsure purchases. But it is primarily to provide extras protection to the consumers for "buyer's satisfaction". Those who are buying the product and then returning it as the buyer's remorse kicks in is simply inappropriate and beats the original purpose of extra liberal return policy.

They know exactly what they get into when they create these policies and they would change them if they were not coming ahead at the end of the day. Nothing wrong with that, they're working to make a profit. But to say that a person "cheats" if he takes advantage of terms is an exageratoin.

I should have called "abuser" as opposed to "cheaters". But is still does not change point. These guys/gals are using the return policy in a wrong way that is leading to those extra cost being passed to other regular consumers who doing it the right way.

-- hide signature --

My Online Gallery - http://www.pbase.com/pradipta

The pretentious, pontificating clowns that some people veritably are. Who exalted you on a pedestal of inviolable morality that you have seen fit to visit your highly subjective conception of societal norms and adiaphora (that which exists outside moral bounds) upon the populace at large?

To wit, B&H's return policy clearly and unequivocally states that "At B&H, our goal is to ensure your complete satisfaction with your purchase. If, for whatever reason, you are dissatisfied with your purchase, you can return it to B&H within 30 days of purchase date."

Perhaps you'd be well advised to refrain from wantonly dispensing your rather arbitrary normative and injunctive decrees.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AZBlue
Contributing MemberPosts: 863Gear list
Like?
Re: May be, I should've used the word "abuser" as opposed to "cheater"
In reply to Pradipta Dutta, 11 months ago

Pradipta Dutta wrote:
No. The purpose of money back warranty is not unsure purchases. But it is primarily to provide extras protection to the consumers for "buyer's satisfaction". Those who are buying the product and then returning it as the buyer's remorse kicks in is simply inappropriate and beats the original purpose of extra liberal return policy. 
I should have called "abuser" as opposed to "cheaters". But is still does not change point. These guys/gals are using the return policy in a wrong way that is leading to those extra cost being passed to other regular consumers who doing it the right way.

-- hide signature --

My Online Gallery - http://www.pbase.com/pradipta

You practice individual responsibility your way, others will practice theirs in their own way. I don't hear any of these retail stores complaining, do you? Also, why do you feel that you have some exclusive understanding of the reasoning behind why retailers offer these guarantees? Your opinion is no more valid than the next person's. Obviously you feel that what the OP did was inappropriate and you would never do the same in your own life. That's great and fine... for you.

If the retailers wanted to limit their return policies in any way, as you suggest, then they are free to do so. However, none have done so. Personally I will not purchase something unless I am 100% sure, and then will return only if the product is defective. However, that is my personal philosophy. Who am I to tell someone else that they can't return something because they didn't like the shade of black? I mean, everyone is different.

-- hide signature --

"I've been in more laps than a napkin" - Mae West

 AZBlue's gear list:AZBlue's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS Macro HSM +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TOF guy
TOF guy MOD
Forum ProPosts: 10,400Gear list
Like?
Re: Really?
In reply to paulski66, 11 months ago

paulski66 wrote:

So your argument is that the retailer just eats the cost of the lens?

It's not that clear cut. Offering a money back warranty lowers the energy barrier a prospective buyer faces when purchasing an item. More so for an expensive lens. There are 2 possible scenarios here:

  • Either the added sales volume makes up for more than the losses on returned items, and the seller comes ahead
  • Or the other way around

Only a retailer could tell us how it's working for them. But the fact is that some internet shops have been doing it for years. They would have changed their policies a long time if this was costing them a significant amount of money. Most likely they come ahead. Another observation consistent with the fact that the policy helps them more than it cost them: the shops which offer the money back warranty are among those with the most competitive prices. They would not be able to compete on prices if they had to pass the cost of the policy to their customers. So you're right: they eat the cost but still wins from the sales volume.

In any case, B&H offer a 30 day money back warranty without restrictions as long as the item is returned in good shape. The buyer is doing nothing wrong by taking advantage of this policy, as generous as it may seem.

-- hide signature --

Thierry - posted as regular forum member

 TOF guy's gear list:TOF guy's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS Macro HSM +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
reginalddwight
Senior MemberPosts: 2,003Gear list
Like?
I'm for the little guy
In reply to RBFresno, 11 months ago

In nearly all instances, I am for the little guy. Big businesses exist because they serve us and not the other way around.

B&H makes it clear on their website that one of the major reasons we should shop there is the "Easy 30-Day Return Policy":

"At B&H, our goal is to ensure your complete satisfaction with your purchase. If, for whatever reason, you are dissatisfied with your purchase, you can return it to B&Hwithin 30 days of purchase date."

To the OP-- Do not be ashamed of your return. It is within your right as a customer!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rjjr
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,360
Like?
Re: The right/proper way
In reply to Pradipta Dutta, 11 months ago

Pradipta Dutta wrote:

Al Giordano wrote:

Pradipta Dutta wrote:

rjjr wrote:

The customer was dissatisfied with the level of performance.  That is a perfectly legitimate reason for a return.

That is not correct. The OP himself said that the lens did perform better than his existing lens/TC combo. But he returned it because the price was too high. And he would've kept it if it was priced at $2K. Did he not know the price before buying?

Namecalling does nothing to validate your position.

There is no such thing as a "right" way.  If someone purchases something and they don't like it for whatever reason, there's absolutely nothing wrong with returning it in keeping with the return policy of the seller.

What many people do to determine whether or not a lens is right for them before buying is either read reviews from trusted experts or better yet, rent the lens out to give it a try themselves. What the OP did is a good example of impulse buy and reaction to buyer's remorse.

I don't think you could be any more wrong in your assertion.

And you couldn't be any more ambiguous in your statement. What exactly is wrong that you are asserting? That people read reviews? People rent lenses?

What is wrong with your argument is your assertion that there is a "right/proper way" to purchase lenses.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rjjr
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,360
Like?
Exactly.
In reply to reginalddwight, 11 months ago

reginalddwight wrote:

In nearly all instances, I am for the little guy. Big businesses exist because they serve us and not the other way around.

B&H makes it clear on their website that one of the major reasons we should shop there is the "Easy 30-Day Return Policy":

"At B&H, our goal is to ensure your complete satisfaction with your purchase. If, for whatever reason, you are dissatisfied with your purchase, you can return it to B&Hwithin 30 days of purchase date."

To the OP-- Do not be ashamed of your return. It is within your right as a customer!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris2J
Regular MemberPosts: 289Gear list
Like?
What if it was a car (auto in US terminology)?
In reply to sjprintz, 11 months ago

I am sure returning it would not fly :-(.

-- hide signature --

Chris J

 Chris2J's gear list:Chris2J's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24mm f/4 (IF) DX Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
eNo
eNo
Forum ProPosts: 11,717
Like?
Re: Renting
In reply to M Lammerse, 11 months ago

M Lammerse wrote:

Why not rent one in the first place for 1 or 2 days? Gives enough time to evaluate a possible purchase.

Makes sense, but then it would be the OP and not the retailer spending extra money, so it fails the "it's all about me" rule.

-- hide signature --

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://imagesbyeduardo.com/
Los Angeles wedding photography that seeks the heart and spirit in each image

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mikael Risedal
Senior MemberPosts: 2,927
Like?
80-400 tested and compared with my canon at 200mm
In reply to knightmelodic, 11 months ago

I have the 80-400 and did a quick comparison with my favorite zoom 70-200/2,8 ISmk2

at 200 mm and 5,6

d800 + 80-400 and 5dmk2 together with 70-200

d800 down sample to  5dmk2  resolution 5616px

The 80-400 behaves well in comparison with  the best  70-200 zoom there are

-- hide signature --

Member of Swedish Photographers Association since 1984
Canon, Hasselblad, Leica,Nikon, Linhoff, Sinar
Member of International anti-banding and read out noise Association

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
wireless
Regular MemberPosts: 404Gear list
Like?
Re: 80-400 tested and compared with my canon at 200mm
In reply to Mikael Risedal, 10 months ago

Mikael Risedal wrote:

I have the 80-400 and did a quick comparison with my favorite zoom 70-200/2,8 ISmk2

at 200 mm and 5,6

d800 + 80-400 and 5dmk2 together with 70-200

d800 down sample to 5dmk2 resolution 5616px

The 80-400 behaves well in comparison with the best 70-200 zoom there are

On my decent monitor (u2713H) the Nikon clearly looks better at the center while the Canon looks better everywhere else.  The Canon does better with the reflection on the bottom, the corrosion on the stem and the leaves.  You don't see that?  I'd say the Nikon was better at center due to its higher pixel count.

Thanks for posting the comparison.  It's the best way to make these comparisions IMO.

best, David

 wireless's gear list:wireless's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads