N
Nielk Mike
Guest
Yes. But how often do you order a new lens? And is that cancellation legal?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
why not order (3) same new lenses to keep (1) best...?
- Thread starter Jeff Greenberg
- Start date
All Bushs Fault
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 1,157
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 783
Yes there are plenty of people on this forum who are opposed to it, if you are paying attention, because they do not want to buy a product that has been opened by human hands and repackaged and sold as new.
Jeff Greenberg
Veteran Member
this is The Age of Sustainability,
and you can't stop it; its time for opened box & used lenses to shine,
here's how:
THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX LENSES
you order used or opened box lens you want,
we put hold on your credit card we send you
(3) copies of the lens you want!
if you don't ship (2) rejected lenses
within 48 hours you pay a reasonable fee
if you don't keep any lens you pay a reasonable fee
it gives buyers the confidence to no longer depend
on new more expensive lenses !!!
each rejected lens is discounted 2% in its next go-round;
today's teary message from Mother Earth: :-( :-( :-( :-( :-(
"you bought new lens, there were (500) near mint lenses just as good & cheaper"
--
shoot first, apologize as needed, move on...
and you can't stop it; its time for opened box & used lenses to shine,
here's how:
THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX LENSES
you order used or opened box lens you want,
we put hold on your credit card we send you
(3) copies of the lens you want!
if you don't ship (2) rejected lenses
within 48 hours you pay a reasonable fee
if you don't keep any lens you pay a reasonable fee
it gives buyers the confidence to no longer depend
on new more expensive lenses !!!
each rejected lens is discounted 2% in its next go-round;
today's teary message from Mother Earth: :-( :-( :-( :-( :-(
"you bought new lens, there were (500) near mint lenses just as good & cheaper"
--
shoot first, apologize as needed, move on...
Last edited:
We just had a similar thread.
My response, then and now, is that it is a matter of ethics.
Ethics can be taught (I did so in a professional capacity) but the sense of it, the receptivity to learning and embracing the concept, has to come from within.
If a person lacks that moral compass, the internal ground rules, teaching it is pointless.
Rather than asking the assembly here, OP should be looking in a mirror.
My response, then and now, is that it is a matter of ethics.
Ethics can be taught (I did so in a professional capacity) but the sense of it, the receptivity to learning and embracing the concept, has to come from within.
If a person lacks that moral compass, the internal ground rules, teaching it is pointless.
Rather than asking the assembly here, OP should be looking in a mirror.
FredInMN1
Leading Member
And if all 3 are unacceptable ? Or 4 or ???
Last edited:
Why do you think this applies only to excessive lens returns?
I'm not a lawyer, however in their Ts & Cs Amazon retains the right to cancel accounts at its sole discretion. Look it up and do some research to determine if they were ever sued for this with a reversal of a cancellation.
Cheers,
Doug
Jeff Greenberg
Veteran Member
N
Nielk Mike
Guest
Given the dominant market position, maybe not in the US - but in Europe it could be an abuse of a dominant position to deny service w/o cause.
And then the seller will have to hope that nothing was done to harm the returned items while customer had them in their possession. Don't think I would want that situation if I was a retailer.
My thought is that if I order something and don't like it that is not the sellers problem, If it is faulty, they should make it right.
My thought is that if I order something and don't like it that is not the sellers problem, If it is faulty, they should make it right.
Ellis Vener
Veteran Member
Back in the '80s and '90s, more than a few professional photographers did this but they were dealing with brick-and-mortar stores where the salespeople not only knew you but also knew knew who was trying to get away with a scam and who was honest.
Professional musicians also do this all the time.
The problem for the retailer is that if the seal is broken on the box, they cannot sell it as new. At least not, and be ethical about it.
The last time I did this was in the late 2000s with the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM lens. But every example I tried was cr-p to begin with. I never found a single one that met my standards for sharpness. Even the people I knew who worked for Canon admitted it was a mediocre lens. That did not Canon sure sold a ton of them because it filled a niche.
--
Ellis Vener
To see my work, please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
I am on Instagram @EllisVenerStudio
“It's not about the f-stop." -Jay Maisel
Professional musicians also do this all the time.
The problem for the retailer is that if the seal is broken on the box, they cannot sell it as new. At least not, and be ethical about it.
The last time I did this was in the late 2000s with the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM lens. But every example I tried was cr-p to begin with. I never found a single one that met my standards for sharpness. Even the people I knew who worked for Canon admitted it was a mediocre lens. That did not Canon sure sold a ton of them because it filled a niche.
--
Ellis Vener
To see my work, please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
I am on Instagram @EllisVenerStudio
“It's not about the f-stop." -Jay Maisel
Last edited:
Ellis Vener
Veteran Member
Unless you are buying directly from the manufacturer, It is the retailer who will be hurt.
Brian Chichester
Veteran Member
I think, as RetCapt succinctly put it, we're looking at a matter of ethics. As the buyer, you are maximizing your own chances of a positive outcome, but ignoring the effects on others.
The OP says "if you're always keeping (1) can camera companies really be mad?' Well yes, because they are landed with two lenses whose value has dropped due to their being "open box".
If the OP had added a clause to the effect that the retailer would be compensated for this loss in value, perhaps through a restocking fee, this would make the process more ethically acceptable, but there is till the matter of the buyer wasting everybody else's time.
So, to answer "why not" - because it's not nice.
The OP says "if you're always keeping (1) can camera companies really be mad?' Well yes, because they are landed with two lenses whose value has dropped due to their being "open box".
If the OP had added a clause to the effect that the retailer would be compensated for this loss in value, perhaps through a restocking fee, this would make the process more ethically acceptable, but there is till the matter of the buyer wasting everybody else's time.
So, to answer "why not" - because it's not nice.
That's up to the legal system in the relevant country to decide if there is sufficient cause. Have you found a case in which it was decided against Amazon? In Germany or the EU?
Cheers,
Doug
Jeff Greenberg
Veteran Member
the OP has modified proposal to Opened Box and Used copies of a lens;
(see above)
to those who are chuffed with their single-sent-single-kept lens,
you may have copy which pleases you but...
on microscopic level ALL copies of same lens differ;
often this shows up in simple testing;
you may be happy as clam with your copy
but in reality there are numerous better copies
& only one copy is the best of all copies;
in the case of choosing from (3) copies,
at least a. one copy is the best copy
b. one copy is the second best copy
c. one copy is the third best copy
(see above)
to those who are chuffed with their single-sent-single-kept lens,
you may have copy which pleases you but...
on microscopic level ALL copies of same lens differ;
often this shows up in simple testing;
you may be happy as clam with your copy
but in reality there are numerous better copies
& only one copy is the best of all copies;
in the case of choosing from (3) copies,
at least a. one copy is the best copy
b. one copy is the second best copy
c. one copy is the third best copy
About 55% of the people in The Netherlands have a credit card. I have never had the need for one, i can pay with my bankcard in every shop and all restaurants and also for gas for my car. But even though about half of all people have a credit card, most prefer paying cash or use their bankcard.
ZodiacPhoto
Veteran Member
Within our minds, we often have this internal dialogue. We may think about doing something – but we understand why it should not be done, and we stop ourselves from doing unethical things.
By the same reason – think what would happen if everybody would do the same – it’s not a good idea to make those internal dialogues public. I don’t want to hear what goes on in other people’s heads, if they behave ethically in the end.
... heard that there was that much sample variation with a particular lens that I was interested in, I'd likely try to get something similar that had a better rep for quality control.
I personally wouldn't feel that great about using the system like that to pick out a lens. Maybe there's some way to test a lens quickly (make up some kind of board to test edge to edge sharpness?) that you could take with you to a brick and mortar shop, test the lens at the store and not have to deal with all of that returning of stuff... which surely drives up prices for everyone else.
--
my flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/
I personally wouldn't feel that great about using the system like that to pick out a lens. Maybe there's some way to test a lens quickly (make up some kind of board to test edge to edge sharpness?) that you could take with you to a brick and mortar shop, test the lens at the store and not have to deal with all of that returning of stuff... which surely drives up prices for everyone else.
--
my flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/
Last edited:
Sure, on small enough scale there are always differences. But do you have any sources or personally gathered samples confirming that the differences are commonly significant enough to actually matter for practical purposes, especially considering that external factors (camera shake, noise etc) reducing image quality are also present, unless you always shoot in completely controlled circumstances?
(Obviously there are some specific lens models such as the old Samyang I mentioned that have unusually large quality variation, but I'd say they are an exception rather than the norm)
Last edited:
Eh Photographer
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 250
- Reaction score
- 381
So how does a "microscopic" difference in a lens show up in your photos?
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum