Posted on by

Back to Camera...

Lens rear element coat marks and slight scratches (2 replies and 2 comments)

5 years ago
Wouter 5 years ago

I bought a used vintage Nikon Ai f/2.8 24mm lens this week and today it came in the mail. 
Unfortunately I noticed some coat marks and little scratches on the rear element of the lens. Especially one 'bigger' mark almost exactly in the center of the lens. 

I asked the seller for his word that the lens was still in good condition and he said the lens was in perfect condition. 

Now obviously I can't do a side by side comparison of a lens with marks and one without the marks but I was wondering, since I payed the full price for the lens, how much % should I be asking him to pay me back? I was thinking 25%. I payed him 130 euro for it and 130 seems to be the price for such a lens in perfect condition. Maybe I'm overreacting but I do feel he had to mention something about these marks and he didn't... I'm a bit disappointed. 

At first he priced the lens at 170 euro because he "mistook" it for the Ai-S version. But I called him out on it so he reduced his price. And now this... ? C'mon... man.. 🙁 

Here you can see the rear element:»

5 years ago
Morris 5 years ago

It seems pretty banged up, which is to be expected to a certain degree, but this looks horrible.
My advice would be to return it: you won't be happy with this lens regardless.
No refund will ever make you feel good about this transaction, I'm afraid.

5 years ago

haven't actually tested it yet, I'm waiting on the camera. In the meantime I shone a lamp through the lens.... doesn't look too good I'm afraid»

5 years ago
jeclark2006 5 years ago

Given that you can buy a brand new Nikon f/2.8 24mm lense for about $350 US... a 'used' and 'with defects' lens should not cost 1/2 the 'new' price.

If you got it for 50 euros... perhaps... but 170 euros... which is about 1/2 the new price (don't know how VAT figures in...) it should be almost new, or at least pristine.

I can accept some barrel wear, or the like, but lens elements should be 'very clean' for the top price I'd pay for used.

As for how such defects play into the actual image. In many cases such defects may not produce any visible effect, unless there is a specular highlight or direct 'light' source or sun hitting the lens.

The same is true for 'uncoated' lenses which may give a 'glow' that may work for some types of shots, but when there's direct light, may show their lacks...

5 years ago

thanks for the explanation!

Well he payed me back 50 euros so that totals it still 90 euro I payed for the lens but I told him once I got to test the image and if I don't like it I'll probably send it back.

Back to Camera...