Otherwise, I think tire-kickers should pay for the convenience of
in-home testing.
It depends on the product. Many lenses I've tried aren't factory sealed--the boxes can easily be opened, the lens tried out, then wrapped back up and put back in the box good as new. I would certainly object to paying a restocking fee for something that they're going to simply put back on the shelf once I hand it back to them. For other products, I can understand the practice. I'm not fond of it, but I understand it.
Personally, I'd be very hesitant to buy a lens from a store that charged a restocking fee if I couldn't try the lens on my camera first. With QC as variable as it is with some lenses, and variations between individual lenses and cameras, there's no guarantee that a lens will work with your particular camera. If I'm buying an L glass and for some reason it doesn't play with my camera, I'd be paying $150-$200 to learn that lesson. (Okay, I could then send the lens and camera to Canon for calibration, but that's also money out of my pocket.) Thank you, but I'll pass on that "deal."
Give me a brick-and-mortar store where I can put the specific lens I'm buying on my camera to make sure it works, and that gives me a period of time to thoroughly test the lens with the option of returning it without penalty. Yeah, I may pay a few pennies more than the on-line stores, and have to pay sales tax, but I'll take
that cost of in-home testing any day of the week. (And if I'm paying "L" prices, you bet your a** I'll be kicking the tires every single day of that return window.)
Later,
K