Is this Minolta lens fake?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
FrancoD Forum Pro • Posts: 13,264
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?
1

sybersitizen wrote:

FrancoD wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

FrancoD wrote:

The OP used the words "cheap copy" . As I pointed out in my first reply, by copy the buyer could have meant that particular lens not a copy in the sense of non genuine.

I don't know about that. The OP said the buyer identified himself as a professional photographer. I would not expect a professional photographer buying a lens for the A-mount system to imagine that lens to be counterfeit in some way,

If you had read and digested my previous posts, by now you would know that the buyer by "cheap copy" did not mean a fake made to look like.. but a copy in the same way as people say " my copy isn't as sharp as..." ort whatever.

Your previous posts, which I read, are opinion pieces. There's nothing wrong with that, but call them what they are.

(my copy of the Dark Side Of The Moon was scratched but no it wasn't a fake...)

"Fake" was the interpretation given by the OP, seejms pretty obvious to me that it wasn't the right understanding of what the buyer meant.

nor to refer to one with oily diaphragm blades as a cheap copy. It doesn't really add up.

Not all that unusual for people to use less than precise descriptive terms. Should be easy enough here to understand the word "cheap" stands for faulty/degraded/no good or whatever you want to use to describe something that is not of the condition you expected it to be.

BTW, not only the blades are oily but there is some oil on one (at least) element , so again I do understand whre the buyer is coming from. I would expect a repair for something like that to be around $200 or more.

I read everything in the thread and I know what your opinion on this is.

Regardless, I chose to state my opinion that I do not think a professional photographer would imagine the lens is counterfeit AND I do not agree with your suggestion that a professional photographer would refer to a lens with problems as a 'cheap copy'.

Ergo, my suspicion is that the buyer is not really a professional photographer at all.

And that's it: We have now stated a couple of different opinions concerning something to which neither of us is personally connected. No need to take it any further.

Yet again you refuse to consider that many people , including regularly here, refer to their lens as a copy simply to mean the one they have, not a counterfit.

For example how often have we had members admitting that they buy several "copies" of the same lens and then keep the one they think is the best ?

You just keep refusing to consider the bleeding obvious. The OP's lens is indeed a "bad/poor/cheap " copy if sold as in "good condition" .

BTW, not all that long ago I commented that I personaly don't like the use of the word "copy" because it can lead to misunderstanding , at the same time I am able to understand that others do use the alternative meanning of that word.

Must be a real problem for you to figure out how Michael Jackson sold over 66 million copies of the Thriller album. How many originals did he sell ?

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
EXX
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow