Is this Minolta lens fake?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
Altmeta New Member • Posts: 5
Is this Minolta lens fake?

Hi everyone

The lens below belonged to my late uncle and I was asked to try find his equipment new owners rather than let it go to waste. So the lens in question was sold on eBay, few weeks ago and he (professional photographer) happy with it for 2 weeks, however, now he is saying it's a cheap copy. Any thoughts on how to help determine whether the buyer is right? Thanks very much for all your help!

paul_kew Senior Member • Posts: 1,779
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?
1
 paul_kew's gear list:paul_kew's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10
FrancoD Forum Pro • Posts: 13,264
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?
2

I have never seen a cheap copy of a lens like that.

put it this way, it would be far too expensive to make one that does look like that.

The buyer might have meant that it is a sub par copy ( copy as in unit not as in made to look like) or simply chnged his mind.

SQLGuy Veteran Member • Posts: 9,655
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?
1

No. That's the real thing.

-- hide signature --

A7R2 with SEL2470Z and a number of adapted lenses (Canon FD, Minolta AF, Canon EF, Leica, Nikon...); A7R converted to IR.

 SQLGuy's gear list:SQLGuy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G9 Canon PowerShot S100 (2000) Canon EOS-1D Canon EOS 5D Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro +24 more
neilt3
neilt3 Senior Member • Posts: 1,804
It's the original version .
2

Is it heck a cheap copy !

It's the original version that Minolta did .

The second version ( which I have ) is white and they started calling them the "G" lenses .

Minolta's pro grade gear .

Both lenses are the same optics , just the cosmetics and gearing changed .

At 200mm it's about as good as my Minolta 200mm f/2.8  Apo G , which is spot on !

.

Guy sounds like a con man or idiot .

( Assuming the lens isn't faulty )

 neilt3's gear list:neilt3's gear list
Minolta DiMAGE 7 Minolta DiMAGE 7Hi Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z5 Konica Minolta DiMAGE A2 Konica Minolta DiMAGE A200 +41 more
neilt3
neilt3 Senior Member • Posts: 1,804
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?
1

paul_kew wrote:

It looks like the ones on http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Minolta-AF-80-200mm-F2.8-APO_lens58.html .

It's exactly that one !

Even 20 years ago it would have cost more to make a fake one than buy a real one .

 neilt3's gear list:neilt3's gear list
Minolta DiMAGE 7 Minolta DiMAGE 7Hi Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z5 Konica Minolta DiMAGE A2 Konica Minolta DiMAGE A200 +41 more
sybersitizen Forum Pro • Posts: 18,047
Is the buyer a fake?
2

Altmeta wrote:

... the lens in question was sold on eBay, few weeks ago and he (professional photographer) happy with it for 2 weeks, however, now he is saying it's a cheap copy. Any thoughts on how to help determine whether the buyer is right?

The buyer is a fool or a scammer. Maybe both.

paul_kew Senior Member • Posts: 1,779
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?
1

I was going to write that,the only thing I wasn't sure about is if it was possible to modify another lens to look like it.

I didn't think there would be enough of a market to make fake Minolta lenses , especially those that wouldn't be big sellers.

I've never heard of any fake lenses of any brand.

 paul_kew's gear list:paul_kew's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10
Brian Chichester
Brian Chichester Regular Member • Posts: 418
Re: Is the buyer a fake?
1

Scammer I think. eBay does attract some less than spotless characters and I would think this buyer has decided he doesn't want or need the lens and is angling for a reduction, or a refund.

He should have picked some other reason though, because this one is stupid.

 Brian Chichester's gear list:Brian Chichester's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6 Olympus PEN E-PL6 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 +10 more
EXX Senior Member • Posts: 1,127
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?
1

The lens you show is very real, not a fake at all (as others also stated). It is in fact a very good lens!

It is the first version of the Minolta AF 80-200mm F2.8 APO. There is a second version, the Minolta AF 80-200mm F2.8 HS APO G, that focuses much faster (hence the HS = High Speed), is white instead of black and much more known to people.

Maybe the buyer thinks it is a fake due to the fact he expected the second version, and does not know about the first version at all.

 EXX's gear list:EXX's gear list
Konica Minolta DiMAGE A2 Sony SLT-A55 Sony a77 II Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM Sony DT 16-80mm F3.5-4.5 ZA Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +19 more
neilt3
neilt3 Senior Member • Posts: 1,804
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?
2

EXX wrote:

The lens you show is very real, not a fake at all (as others also stated). It is in fact a very good lens!

It is the first version of the Minolta AF 80-200mm F2.8 APO. There is a second version, the Minolta AF 80-200mm F2.8 HS APO G, that focuses much faster (hence the HS = High Speed), is white instead of black and much more known to people.

Maybe the buyer thinks it is a fake due to the fact he expected the second version, and does not know about the first version at all.

What baffles me if the buyer was genuine , is being able to confuse the two .

Surly the seller put up a picture of it in the sales listing  , wherever it was listed .

You'll be hard pressed to be able to confuse the two !

 neilt3's gear list:neilt3's gear list
Minolta DiMAGE 7 Minolta DiMAGE 7Hi Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z5 Konica Minolta DiMAGE A2 Konica Minolta DiMAGE A200 +41 more
OP Altmeta New Member • Posts: 5
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?

First of all, I am extremely grateful to all of you for taking the time to respond to my post.

As a complete novice in the photography world, your expertise has been very useful. The buyer has sent me some photos of the lens saying that on further inspection, he's notice oil on the aperture blades. Thankfully he has attached a couple of photographs and it does seem to be somewhat defective. I am going to accept the return request, however, does it mean the lens is no good for anybody?

Photos of the oil stains: https://imgur.com/a/Q1h93Mw

Any advice will be highly appreciated.

Thank you again.

neilt3
neilt3 Senior Member • Posts: 1,804
needs a service
1

Altmeta wrote:

First of all, I am extremely grateful to all of you for taking the time to respond to my post.

As a complete novice in the photography world, your expertise has been very useful. The buyer has sent me some photos of the lens saying that on further inspection, he's notice oil on the aperture blades. Thankfully he has attached a couple of photographs and it does seem to be somewhat defective. I am going to accept the return request, however, does it mean the lens is no good for anybody?

Photos of the oil stains: https://imgur.com/a/Q1h93Mw

Any advice will be highly appreciated.

Thank you again.

The lens just needs a service .

Once the aperture blades are cleaned the lens will be good as new .

With oil on them it stops them moving as smoothly and quickly as they should resulting in an over-exposed picture (ie , too bright ) .

This does of course effect the value .

So either you can pay a service centre to give the lens a clean , or you can re-list the lens stating the faults ( ie , state it has an oily aperture and would benefit from a full CLA ; Clean , Lubricate & Adjust ) .

Personally , I'd just put it back on ebay including the pictures of the aperture and sell it as is .

List it under the category of spares / repairs with no returns and someone will buy it and be very happy .

The repair is simple for someone that knows how , and is no big deal .

 neilt3's gear list:neilt3's gear list
Minolta DiMAGE 7 Minolta DiMAGE 7Hi Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z5 Konica Minolta DiMAGE A2 Konica Minolta DiMAGE A200 +41 more
Brian Chichester
Brian Chichester Regular Member • Posts: 418
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?
1

Looking back on this buyer's communications with you, first claiming the lens is a fake, then discovering oil on the aperture blades, it seems clear to me that he is suffering buyer's remorse and is looking for a way to reverse the sale.

eBay tends to favour the buyer in any dispute so you are probably going to have to suck it up and take the return. In your place I would blacklist this guy to make sure he doesn't bid on anything else of mine.

 Brian Chichester's gear list:Brian Chichester's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6 Olympus PEN E-PL6 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 +10 more
FrancoD Forum Pro • Posts: 13,264
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?

Brian Chichester wrote:

Looking back on this buyer's communications with you, first claiming the lens is a fake, then discovering oil on the aperture blades, it seems clear to me that he is suffering buyer's remorse and is looking for a way to reverse the sale.

eBay tends to favour the buyer in any dispute so you are probably going to have to suck it up and take the return. In your place I would blacklist this guy to make sure he doesn't bid on anything else of mine.

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.

Copy def :

  1. 1.a thing made to be similar or identical to another."the problem is telling which is the original document and which the copy"
  2. 2.a single specimen of a particular book, record, or other publication or issue."the record has sold more than a million copies"
OP Altmeta New Member • Posts: 5
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?

I believe it was a bit of both, my lack of knowledge/research with a possible slight case of buyer remorse. He offered, but later refused to send me photos taken with the lens in case it might harm his case (perhaps?). I did send him photos that I had taken with the lens, which looked perfectly fine to me, but I'm a complete novice.  At a later date he did find oil marks on the aperture which was clear evidence of not as described so I have accepted the return and departed ways amicably. I had sold it for £269, so I was thinking of reducing it down to 199 with the faults to see how it goes.

Thanks again for everyone's help!

FrancoD Forum Pro • Posts: 13,264
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?

I traded in lenses for about 30 years. It wasn't all that unusual for me to find oil/scratches/fungus that the owner had no idea it was there.

Around $400 USD seems to be a starting price for that lens in good conditions but there are some in the $600 and up. Still if I had purchased your lens thinking it was clean , I would have probably tried to return it too .

sybersitizen Forum Pro • Posts: 18,047
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?
1

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

FrancoD Forum Pro • Posts: 13,264
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?
1

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.

(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.

sybersitizen Forum Pro • Posts: 18,047
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?
1

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.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads