Is this Minolta lens fake?

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
FrancoD Forum Pro • Posts: 13,755
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 ?

sybersitizen Forum Pro • Posts: 18,657
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?

FrancoD wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

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" .

Repeating your position is not going to change mine. My position remains as it was all along: A professional photographer should have used the terms 'oily blades' and or 'damaged or defective element' when complaining about that lens, not 'cheap copy'.

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 ?

As you feel compelled to repeat the same thing over and over, thinking it will somehow matter to me, it must be a real problem for you that I don't share your opinion on this topic.

That's the way it is, so here's what you can do about it:

Brian Chichester
Brian Chichester Regular Member • Posts: 468
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?

That's beautiful - I may borrow it.

Incidentally, one of the finest films ever made...

 Brian Chichester's gear list:Brian Chichester's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Olympus PEN E-PM2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6 Olympus PEN E-PL6 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +11 more
sybersitizen Forum Pro • Posts: 18,657
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?

Brian Chichester wrote:

That's beautiful - I may borrow it.

Sure. It's not mine to lend, though. Freely available here:

https://imgflip.com/i/38torl

You can also make your own with their meme generator.

Incidentally, one of the finest films ever made...

Yep.

OP Altmeta New Member • Posts: 5
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?

Hi, the lens was returned back to me today. Upon inspection, I noticed a circular mark in the middle of the lens that wasn't there before. Attempted to wipe it off using some breath and lens tissues but no avail. It seems to be a groove rather than a mark. Does it affect the use of the lens or is it a cosmetic defect? I don't want to cause an issue to the buyer unless it's impairs the functionality. Also, any ideas what may have caused these grooves?

Thanks again for everything!

Photos below:

sybersitizen Forum Pro • Posts: 18,657
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?

Altmeta wrote:

Upon inspection, I noticed a circular mark in the middle of the lens that wasn't there before. Attempted to wipe it off using some breath and lens tissues but no avail. It seems to be a groove rather than a mark.

If you're sure it won't come off at all, it's probably either a scratch in the lens coating or a scratch through the lens coating into the glass. I see other marks there as well, and at least one of those looks exactly like a scratch or small chip in the glass.

Does it affect the use of the lens or is it a cosmetic defect?

It most likely won't affect images, but only testing can tell you for sure. In any case, whether it affects images or not, it detracts from the value, so you'll have to mention the issue if you offer the lens for sale again.

I don't want to cause an issue to the buyer unless it's impairs the functionality.

Are you taking about the buyer who bought it and returned it, or a potential new buyer?

Also, any ideas what may have caused these grooves?

It's not uncommon for people in the general population who handle lenses to do things to them that end up scratching or otherwise damaging the lens coatings. It's less common for them to do things that actually damage the glass. However, it would be extremely uncommon for a professional photographer to cause any such damage to a lens he just bought. See my earlier posts for my opinion about that.

The uniformly circular nature of the big mark in combination with the many other smaller marks suggests the possibility that 'someone' could have tried to clean the rear element in the wrong way and/or partially disassemble the rear section of the lens for some reason, and perhaps was very sloppy with the tools used.

I wish you good luck in your dealings with the former buyer and/or your next buyer, as the case may be.

OP Altmeta New Member • Posts: 5
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?

sybersitizen wrote:

Altmeta wrote:

Upon inspection, I noticed a circular mark in the middle of the lens that wasn't there before. Attempted to wipe it off using some breath and lens tissues but no avail. It seems to be a groove rather than a mark.

If you're sure it won't come off at all, it's probably either a scratch in the lens coating or a scratch through the lens coating into the glass. I see other marks there as well, and at least one of those looks exactly like a scratch or small chip in the glass.

Does it affect the use of the lens or is it a cosmetic defect?

It most likely won't affect images, but only testing can tell you for sure. In any case, whether it affects images or not, it detracts from the value, so you'll have to mention the issue if you offer the lens for sale again.

I don't want to cause an issue to the buyer unless it's impairs the functionality.

Are you taking about the buyer who bought it and returned it, or a potential new buyer?

Also, any ideas what may have caused these grooves?

It's not uncommon for people in the general population who handle lenses to do things to them that end up scratching or otherwise damaging the lens coatings. It's less common for them to do things that actually damage the glass. However, it would be extremely uncommon for a professional photographer to cause any such damage to a lens he just bought. See my earlier posts for my opinion about that.

The uniformly circular nature of the big mark in combination with the many other smaller marks suggests the possibility that 'someone' could have tried to clean the rear element in the wrong way and/or partially disassemble the rear section of the lens for some reason, and perhaps was very sloppy with the tools used.

I wish you good luck in your dealings with the former buyer and/or your next buyer, as the case may be.

Thanks for your kind response. Initially, there were 2 nicks that were photographed and and brought up in writing in the description. The circular mark is new, but as it's relatively small defect considering the overall state, I will accept it the way it is and revise the listing accordingly for the future buyer.

Thanks very much to everyone. You have all been incredibly kind with your knowledge and expertise!

FrancoD Forum Pro • Posts: 13,755
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?

Have you checked that the serial n is the one of the lens you had ?

FrancoD Forum Pro • Posts: 13,755
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?
1

sybersitizen wrote:

FrancoD wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

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" .

Repeating your position is not going to change mine. My position remains as it was all along: A professional photographer should have used the terms 'oily blades' and or 'damaged or defective element' when complaining about that lens, not 'cheap copy'.

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 ?

As you feel compelled to repeat the same thing over and over, thinking it will somehow matter to me, it must be a real problem for you that I don't share your opinion on this topic.

That's the way it is, so here's what you can do about it:

If you think you bought a fake Rolex, would take photos of some dirt inside it or just send the watch back ?

Why would it be different with a fake lens ?

BTW, yes I am disaponted about your lack of logical thinking.

sybersitizen Forum Pro • Posts: 18,657
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?

FrancoD wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

FrancoD wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

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" .

Repeating your position is not going to change mine. My position remains as it was all along: A professional photographer should have used the terms 'oily blades' and or 'damaged or defective element' when complaining about that lens, not 'cheap copy'.

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 ?

As you feel compelled to repeat the same thing over and over, thinking it will somehow matter to me, it must be a real problem for you that I don't share your opinion on this topic.

That's the way it is, so here's what you can do about it:

If you think you bought a fake Rolex, would take photos of some dirt inside it or just send the watch back ?

Why would it be different with a fake lens ?

BTW, yes I am disaponted about your lack of logical thinking.

Oh. My. God. You're still at it, even after a week has passed and the OP is done with the whole mess. Between you and The Davinator in those other threads, I don't know which of you is more doggedly obsessed with trivialities. It's quite a thing to behold.

neilt3
neilt3 Senior Member • Posts: 1,882
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?

FrancoD wrote:

Have you checked that the serial n is the one of the lens you had ?

The OP looks to have sold the lens now for parts .

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/324255731962

The circular scratch to the rear element is now clear how it appeared .

The mount and baffle were removed , and in doing so the ribbon cable was severed ( that's good , innit !) .

Then it looks like some numpty has used a rubber tool to try and unscrew the rear element , but their must have been a bit if grit/sand etc present as that has caused the scratch .

They'll have tried this to get to the aperture to clean it , but failed and scrapped the lens at the same time .

Ba**tards .

Which of course doesn't exclude a lens swap .

So that concludes that 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 +43 more
The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 24,417
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?
1

sybersitizen wrote:

FrancoD wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

FrancoD wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

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" .

Repeating your position is not going to change mine. My position remains as it was all along: A professional photographer should have used the terms 'oily blades' and or 'damaged or defective element' when complaining about that lens, not 'cheap copy'.

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 ?

As you feel compelled to repeat the same thing over and over, thinking it will somehow matter to me, it must be a real problem for you that I don't share your opinion on this topic.

That's the way it is, so here's what you can do about it:

If you think you bought a fake Rolex, would take photos of some dirt inside it or just send the watch back ?

Why would it be different with a fake lens ?

BTW, yes I am disaponted about your lack of logical thinking.

Oh. My. God. You're still at it, even after a week has passed and the OP is done with the whole mess. Between you and The Davinator in those other threads, I don't know which of you is more doggedly obsessed with trivialities. It's quite a thing to behold.

So trivial...but you keep reading the posts and responding.  Maybe they would not go on forever if you simply stopped arguing about things when you have been proven incorrect.

-- hide signature --

He worships me so much he even took my name. How awesome is that!

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon Z7 +16 more
Marty4650
Marty4650 Forum Pro • Posts: 15,795
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?

FrancoD wrote:

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.

I'm not so sure if I agree with your interpretation. If the buyer was complaining about the quality of the lens, he probably would have called it a "defective copy" and not a "cheap copy/"

The term "cheap copy" is most often used to describe shoddily made counterfeits.

For example...

  • a $20 Rolex is a "cheap copy"
  • a $1,000 Rolex is a "counterfeit, but a good one."
  • a broken watch is a "defective copy"
 Marty4650's gear list:Marty4650's gear list
Panasonic LX100 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +16 more
sybersitizen Forum Pro • Posts: 18,657
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?

Marty4650 wrote:

FrancoD wrote:

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.

I'm not so sure if I agree with your interpretation. If the buyer was complaining about the quality of the lens, he probably would have called it a "defective copy" and not a "cheap copy/"

The term "cheap copy" is most often used to describe shoddily made counterfeits.

For example...

  • a $20 Rolex is a "cheap copy"
  • a $1,000 Rolex is a "counterfeit, but a good one."
  • a broken watch is a "defective copy"

Warning - you've expressed an opinion on this subject that's similar to mine. The opinion police don't take kindly to that sort of thing, so expect consequences.

EvilOne
EvilOne Forum Pro • Posts: 14,525
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?

I have the very same lens... I can assure you its not a fake.. The detail is too perfect.

 EvilOne's gear list:EvilOne's gear list
Minolta DiMAGE 7Hi Nikon Coolpix 990 Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 Sony SLT-A77 +5 more
neilt3
neilt3 Senior Member • Posts: 1,882
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?
1

EvilOne wrote:

I have the very same lens... I can assure you its not a fake.. The detail is too perfect.

Bill , it seems the O.P confused things calling the lens "fake" .

The lens was indeed real , the word that should have been used was "faulty" .

Which it was !

By the time the buyer sent it back to him it had passed being "faulty" and had become "vandalised" , I was going to use another "f" word , but I won't !

 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 +43 more
EvilOne
EvilOne Forum Pro • Posts: 14,525
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?

neilt3 wrote:

EvilOne wrote:

I have the very same lens... I can assure you its not a fake.. The detail is too perfect.

Bill , it seems the O.P confused things calling the lens "fake" .

The lens was indeed real , the word that should have been used was "faulty" .

Which it was !

By the time the buyer sent it back to him it had passed being "faulty" and had become "vandalised" , I was going to use another "f" word , but I won't !

Sorry. I did not follow the whole thread. I saw the top0ic line and the photos of the lens... That particular lens is was my first really exciting lens. I was trying to insert my excitement for the lens to the OP.

 EvilOne's gear list:EvilOne's gear list
Minolta DiMAGE 7Hi Nikon Coolpix 990 Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 Sony SLT-A77 +5 more
neilt3
neilt3 Senior Member • Posts: 1,882
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?
1

EvilOne wrote:

neilt3 wrote:

EvilOne wrote:

I have the very same lens... I can assure you its not a fake.. The detail is too perfect.

Bill , it seems the O.P confused things calling the lens "fake" .

The lens was indeed real , the word that should have been used was "faulty" .

Which it was !

By the time the buyer sent it back to him it had passed being "faulty" and had become "vandalised" , I was going to use another "f" word , but I won't !

Sorry. I did not follow the whole thread. I saw the top0ic line and the photos of the lens... That particular lens is was my first really exciting lens. I was trying to insert my excitement for the lens to the OP.

I have the later white version and it's also a fantastic lens . ( Same optics )

I also have the Minolta 200mm f/2.8 , and at 200mm the results are essentially the same .

The 200mm is much lighter and takes a tele-converter , which is handy when I'm out hiking and travelling light(ish).

.

The pictures he posted showed a few flaws , but the lens he got back he resold on eBay showing and staiting the lens as it then was when it was returned to him .

Whoever had bought it first had tried getting the rear element out to clean the oil off it .

In doing so they left a big circular gouge on the lens and ripped the ribbon cable from the contacts .

Poor fella got shafted .

 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 +43 more
FrancoD Forum Pro • Posts: 13,755
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?

Marty4650 wrote:

FrancoD wrote:

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.

I'm not so sure if I agree with your interpretation. If the buyer was complaining about the quality of the lens, he probably would have called it a "defective copy" and not a "cheap copy/"

The term "cheap copy" is most often used to describe shoddily made counterfeits.

For example...

  • a $20 Rolex is a "cheap copy"
  • a $1,000 Rolex is a "counterfeit, but a good one."
  • a broken watch is a "defective copy"

No offence but when communicating not everyone uses the correct word all of the time. The trick in understanding is to figure out the intended meaning by the context.

In this case, if you look at the photos of that lens it should be pretty obvious that the buyer could not mistake that lens for a "cheap copy" in the sense of cheaply made fake.

I would strongly suggest to people that don't get this not to ever work in a hardware store *.

(home improvement store for those in the US)

Marty4650
Marty4650 Forum Pro • Posts: 15,795
Re: Is this Minolta lens fake?

FrancoD wrote:

Marty4650 wrote:

FrancoD wrote:

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.

I'm not so sure if I agree with your interpretation. If the buyer was complaining about the quality of the lens, he probably would have called it a "defective copy" and not a "cheap copy/"

The term "cheap copy" is most often used to describe shoddily made counterfeits.

For example...

  • a $20 Rolex is a "cheap copy"
  • a $1,000 Rolex is a "counterfeit, but a good one."
  • a broken watch is a "defective copy"

No offence but when communicating not everyone uses the correct word all of the time. The trick in understanding is to figure out the intended meaning by the context.

In this case, if you look at the photos of that lens it should be pretty obvious that the buyer could not mistake that lens for a "cheap copy" in the sense of cheaply made fake.

I would strongly suggest to people that don't get this not to ever work in a hardware store *.

(home improvement store for those in the US)

With respect,I think you might be overthinking this. The OP asked "is this lens fake" which clearly seems to mean "is it genuine?"

His friend the photographer had told him it was a "cheap copy." He didn't call it a "poor copy" or a "bad copy" or a "defective copy".... he called it a cheap copy. And that also seems to imply it isn't the real thing. It is a cheap imitation.  Like you, I agree that this lens to too common to counterfeit, and a professional photographer should have known that, but lots of people call themselves professionals who really don't know very much about their profession.

I also agree that it should be pretty obvious that this is a genuine lens. This lens currently sells for between $250 and $350 and it would cost a lot more than that to create a counterfeit copy.

Words do matter, and if there was any miscommunication here it was between that photographer and the OP. For whatever reason the photographer called it a "cheap copy" and that led the OP to believe it might be a counterfeit lens since his question becomes "is this a fake?"

 Marty4650's gear list:Marty4650's gear list
Panasonic LX100 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +16 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads