inaccurate eBay lens description

math guy

Senior Member
Messages
2,984
Solutions
4
Reaction score
556
Location
PA, US
I'm looking for advice on how to resolve an issue with an eBay seller. I've purchased a lot on eBay over the years - mostly good experiences, with only a handful of bad ones. And the bad ones were obvious cases of just returning the item. But this time I may prefer to keep the item and negotiate the price (if the seller is willing).

The lens is a Sony 70-350 that was described as "like new", "mint", and "as if unopened". And the pictures on the listing were not detailed enough to reveal any damage. But when it arrived today, it had pretty significant scuffing, as if it had been dropped or scraped on concrete. And it has a little notch next to the focus ring which is so straight that it may even have been intentional - as if the previous owner wanted a notch for some reason.

I tested it out quickly, and I cannot detect any optical problems. I'm not a pro tester by any stretch, but I compared the edges to each other and can't really see any decentering. And the contrast and sharpness seem to be on par with what I was expecting. There is no trouble with zooming in/out, nor any other mechanical issue as far as I can tell. So I'm thinking the damage may be entirely cosmetic.

The lens is still under warranty until September, which is one of the reasons I pulled the trigger on this one. But I wonder whether Sony would honor a warranty claim with this sort of exterior damage. Plus, this damage will definitely affect resale value if I ever decide to sell it.

So I have two questions:

1) Should I keep the lens or return it?

2) If I keep it, what would be a fair resolution with the seller (such as percent refund, actual dollar refund, etc.)?

 I consider this to be fairly severe scuffing compared to the condition I typically keep my lenses in.
I consider this to be fairly severe scuffing compared to the condition I typically keep my lenses in.

These indentations appear to be from concrete or something similar.
These indentations appear to be from concrete or something similar.

1b742db6da014a41b97b0fb76b0bf771.jpg

Here's the notch which almost looks intentional.




--
-- Joe S.
If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid. ~ Albert Einstein
 
Hey math guy, what I would say in the same situation is the lens is not as described, and request a full refund, including return postage. Also pretty sure the warranty is only for the original purchaser, does not carry over, but someone else may know for sure, one way or the other.
 
Hey math guy, what I would say in the same situation is the lens is not as described, and request a full refund, including return postage.
Thanks, John. That's kinda the way I'm leaning. The difference to buy it brand new would be roughly $100 after the Amazon store card 5% rebate. Peace of mind may be worth that.
Also pretty sure the warranty is only for the original purchaser, does not carry over, but someone else may know for sure, one way or the other.
Actually Sony's warranty says "the original and any subsequent end user owner(s)". I was surprised by that myself, but I checked before making the purchase in the first place.
 
Hey math guy, what I would say in the same situation is the lens is not as described, and request a full refund, including return postage.
Thanks, John. That's kinda the way I'm leaning. The difference to buy it brand new would be roughly $100 after the Amazon store card 5% rebate. Peace of mind may be worth that.
I got a lens with significant cosmetic damage from ebay, without being shown in description, or with pictures. I returned without hesitation, requested the return the same day when I received the package. I knew that the cosmetic damage would bugg me every time I would use the lens. What is the resale value if no one wants to buy it like that, with pictures of scuffing showing that? Possiblity the seller, or I should say the lens user didn't want it anymore with the scuffing. My return to ebay seller was easy, with 30 days policy and they paid return postage. All I had to do is show the cosmetic damage with good focused closeup pictures. I presume the seller was a store as it showed thousands of items sold and it was easier to accept the return by a clerk.
 
Last edited:
If the first scratch is below the lens (with the lens mounted) he probably rested (not dropped) the camera on concrete and it got scratched.

The other marks are pretty much irrelevant.

With a price so high though, it's clear that he intentionally hid the marks to get as much as possible; an honest seller would have listed the item with the pictures you posted here on the forums, and probably gotten 100 coins less on the final price.

I don't think the damage is enough to justify Sony refusing to repair under warranty, the question is are you ok with what you got for the money you paid or not?

If you can demostrate (and you can with good reason) to Paypal that the intention was to hide the damage on the product, they should be ok with a return and refund at the seller's expense, but I don't think they would fully refund you directly; seems a little excessive; after all the lens works fine and is in decent condition (but not the condition in the description, because scratched is not "like unopened").
 
I had the same thing happen. I bought a lens used off FM. The seller described it as "Mint and like new". It had the exact same scratch on the end of the barrel...as if it had been set down on the concrete and scuffed. I PM'd the seller and called him out. I sent him pics of the scratches and expressed my dissatisfaction with the description. I did not ask for any refund or discount. I never heard back from the jerk. I used the lens for a year or so then sold it. I was very transparent about the condition of the lens and added pics of the scratches to the FS add I posted. I lost about 50 bucks on the deal.

If it bugs you I say you pursue a full refund, especially if you weren't really saving that much compared to buying new. Otherwise, keep it, enjoy it and move on.
 
If the first scratch is below the lens (with the lens mounted) he probably rested (not dropped) the camera on concrete and it got scratched.
That's a good point. When I contacted him, he insisted that it has not been dropped (and he is the original owner). I'd like to take him at his word on that. You are probably correct about how the scratches got there, especially given the fact that the optics seem to be just fine.
The other marks are pretty much irrelevant.

With a price so high though, it's clear that he intentionally hid the marks to get as much as possible; an honest seller would have listed the item with the pictures you posted here on the forums, and probably gotten 100 coins less on the final price.

I don't think the damage is enough to justify Sony refusing to repair under warranty, the question is are you ok with what you got for the money you paid or not?

If you can demostrate (and you can with good reason) to Paypal that the intention was to hide the damage on the product, they should be ok with a return and refund at the seller's expense, but I don't think they would fully refund you directly; seems a little excessive; after all the lens works fine and is in decent condition (but not the condition in the description, because scratched is not "like unopened").
After thinking about it overnight, I would probably say yes I am fine with it. I think I'll ask him to refund a small portion of the price. It's irritating, but at the same time I don't want to take advantage of the situation and be unfair to him either.
 
I had the same thing happen. I bought a lens used off FM. The seller described it as "Mint and like new". It had the exact same scratch on the end of the barrel...as if it had been set down on the concrete and scuffed. I PM'd the seller and called him out. I sent him pics of the scratches and expressed my dissatisfaction with the description. I did not ask for any refund or discount. I never heard back from the jerk. I used the lens for a year or so then sold it. I was very transparent about the condition of the lens and added pics of the scratches to the FS add I posted. I lost about 50 bucks on the deal.

If it bugs you I say you pursue a full refund, especially if you weren't really saving that much compared to buying new. Otherwise, keep it, enjoy it and move on.
Thanks, Corey. Your number is actually helpful. I looked at KEH, B&H, and Adorama's used inventory and compared prices of "like new" lenses with "excellent" or "very good" (which I think this lens would be rated). It seems like it makes about a $40 - $50 difference on a lens like this. It's nice to know that is consistent with your experience. So I'll probably just ask the seller to refund $40 of the price and call it even. Pretty sure the optics are fine.
 
I would probably keep it and happily shoot. I'm also looking for used 70-350, but I'm worry much more about soft images at 350mm. If it's optically good, such small damages are not a big issue to me. I saw much worse after proffesional use and abuse :-)

Of course, I wouldn't be happy when product described as new, but the process of returning etc. would discouraged me.
 
I'm convinced the lens is optically fine, so I've decided to keep it if the seller will agree to refund 5% of the price. After comparing selling prices of "like new" and "excellent" lenses on KEH, that seems to be a fair request. I'm waiting to hear back from the seller now.

Thanks for the input, everyone.
 
If the seller refuses a partial refund, simply open an item not as described dispute with eBay and you will get all of your money back, including the original and return shipping. There are times when the eBay policy on this is unfair to the seller, but as the buyer, it’s kind of nice to have that protection. An honest seller will understand that and most likely happily offer the partial refund to avoid the hassle.
 
The seller begrudgingly agreed to the 5% partial refund, so I'm keeping the lens. Thanks again for the input.
 
Solution

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top