Lazy, deceptive eBay ad, yet again

**G_Money** · 08-21-2011, 11:50 AM

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

Ad is for a Pentax-M 50mm ƒ/2 lens. Title of ad is Pentax-M SMC 50mm 1:2 Lens. Ad goes on to say "PLEASE READ: This is NOT the F1.2. It is F2.0 lens reads 1:2. The colon has a different meaning." Yet the image chosen is clearly a Pentax-A SMC 50mm 1:1.2. If the seller goes to the trouble to explain that the lens is not an ƒ/1.2 lens, how much more effort could it take to put the proper image in?

Pentax-M SMC 50 mm 1:2 Lens For Pentax | eBay

Philoslothical · 08-21-2011, 01:01 PM

IDK, that he spends his whole description clarifying what the lens is, it's not that deceptive. He should have used the right image, but it may have been an honest mistake. 100% feedback says something too.

It is overpriced for an M f./2 though. $60 shipping is just asinine.

**G_Money** · 08-21-2011, 01:20 PM

I guess if all you did was read the ad then it isn't deceptive at all. But it was the image that pulled me in, only to discover that the only thing matching the ad was the 50mm focal length. I don't think there was intent to deceive, but how hard is it to chase down the correct image? And there is no M ƒ/1.2, only K and A.

**Ash** · 08-21-2011, 01:45 PM

The image is misleading and is not an accurate representation of the product being sold. I'd report it or at least inform the seller.

v5planet · 08-21-2011, 01:49 PM

From my one brief experience selling stuff on fleabay, I recall being able to change attached photos with no fee. Given that it's not hard to track down photos of the correct lens -- or heaven forbid, take one of the actual product being sold -- I must raise a cynical eyebrow to this listing. Why bother going to all that trouble of telling potential buyers that the lens being sold is not the lens in the photo when the real solution is even easier? Seems like the seller is just trying to cover his ass while simultaneously drawing in extra attention for a common lens.

v5planet · 08-21-2011, 01:51 PM

In my experience staring at listings it is MUCH more common to see people selling a 50 f2 but title the ad as 50 1.2... You can chalk this up to not understanding the difference between "1:2" and "1.2", but I think most of those people know what they're going.

This is the first time I've seen a situation like this though where the seller is totally and transparently aware of what the lens really is, but shows a picture of the false item for no credible reason.

**Just1MoreDave** · 08-21-2011, 03:48 PM

I automatically interpret "Stock Photo" as "run away". Like the OP, I will notice a photo, and even at 100x100, a 50/1.2 looks a lot different than a 50/2. The lazy seller will often choose the wrong stock photo or pre-filled information because most of the stuff eBay has is for newer equipment. (They don't even have Takumar as a brand.) Stock photos are useless for used items. If a seller can't provide a photo of the item you're buying, he has no business selling on eBay.

alohadave · 08-21-2011, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by G_Money

I guess if all you did was read the ad then it isn't deceptive at all. But it was the image that pulled me in, only to discover that the only thing matching the ad was the 50mm focal length. I don't think there was intent to deceive, but how hard is it to chase down the correct image? And there is no M ƒ/1.2, only K and A.

Hell, I've bid on a 50 1:2 with the correct picture and still thought it was the 1.2. Mistakes happen on both sides.

George Lama · 08-21-2011, 07:17 PM

Come on guys, you're asking too much of the average ebay seller. Have you seen the number of out of focus photos of photographic equipment on ebay? It's so bad you can't even think about making out the writing on the lens barrels!

Ironic, isn't it?

ripit · 08-22-2011, 06:40 PM

You have to kind of get use to it. There are endless listings with much worse descriptions than this and blurry pics. Many don't tell what mount it is and give every picture possible except anything that could tell you want the mount is (maybe on purpose because they know its an obsolete mount). Then there are the people that list it as the filter that was attached. I bought a "vivitar 52mm skylight 1a" a few weeks ago that was a vivitar series one 70-210mm 3.5 ver 2 for 15$ shipped (olympus mount but it was easy to convert and overall it was in excellent condition). Even with an olympus mount it was worth a whole lot more than this in the condition it was in. There is currently listed a pentax k1000 and tiffen mini zoom lens. Lens is marked tiffen 62mm haze-1. I gather the lens is actually a sigma 39-80mm. Not really worth the 70$ he wants (especially with the terrible description).

I often watch some of this poorly listed overpriced junk to see how its relisted. I have seen some occasionally go from a very high buy it now to .99 cent starting price and free shipping. One vivitar lens that I have on the way had a 40$ starting price. It was re-listed with a 1 cent starting price (sniped it for 5.50$ free shipping).

Its easier to accept their stupidity (or at least ignorance about lenses, though selling a complex item like a lens when you know nothing about it seems stupid to me) when you can take advantage of it occasionally. Stock pictures just mean a cheaper selling price. If its describes as being in excellent condition then hold them to it. I have even seen lenses with perfect descriptions (all issues like scratches, fungus, oil on blades, haze, rings turning smoothly, aperture snappy etc. addressed and a perfect description of what it is), but a stock photo!!! Of course you have to accept the possibility of getting junk. Sellers with perfect feedback and low sales numbers are often good because if its bad they often want to make it right with little hassle to protect feedback. If not 1 bad feedback trashes their score.
Can you tell I have had some serious ebay LBA recently. I got some very nice lenses cheap and overall everything I got was very much worth what I paid overall (in fact quite cheap) due to this kind of stupidity. I got a few that were total garbage but overall it balanced out well in my favor.

So what has everyone else seen for bad listings (it might be fun to see who can find the worst listing).

RioRico · 08-22-2011, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by alohadave

Hell, I've bid on a 50 1:2 with the correct picture and still thought it was the 1.2. Mistakes happen on both sides.

Me too.

[/me smacks head, runs for oven]

Erd§ · 08-22-2011, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by ripit

So what has everyone else seen for bad listings (it might be fun to see who can find the worst listing).

I've got two.
The first (already sold) claimed to be a 50mm 8-element Super Takumar, even describing where the infra-red mark should be to identify it as such - then doesn't provide a pic of the infra-red mark. The serial number suggests that it is in NO WAY early enough to be an 8-element version:
8-ELEMENT_1

The second (still available as of this post) is an 8-element Super Takumar - and is described as a "9 ELEMENTS RARE ZEISS"
8-ELEMENT_2

**Just1MoreDave** · 08-22-2011, 09:19 PM

I think this was previously listed with a higher price. The current price is not outrageous but it's definitely not in "very good condition"; more like "filter ring gone, probably shattered when dropped".

PENTAX K-RICOH XR-P LENSE | eBay

RioRico · 08-22-2011, 09:27 PM

Sometimes the imperfect listings are treasure-troves, if the seller really doesn't know what they have. I've done well there. I haven't bought/sold for a few weeks/months so I don't know the current market; I'll find out soon enough. But my last few transactions were tough on me as the seller. I'll needfully be very careful how I word my next listings. Careless sellers don't do well. Sometimes they even have threads devoted to ridiculing them. Like here.

Erd§ · 08-22-2011, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Just1MoreDave

but it's definitely not in "very good condition"

PENTAX K-RICOH XR-P LENSE | eBay

I'm sure what they meant was VERY GOOD CONDITION...for a lens that was found under a dirt pile.

08-21-2011, 11:50 AM	#1
G_Money Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 598	Lazy, deceptive eBay ad, yet again Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here. Ad is for a Pentax-M 50mm ƒ/2 lens. Title of ad is Pentax-M SMC 50mm 1:2 Lens. Ad goes on to say "PLEASE READ: This is NOT the F1.2. It is F2.0 lens reads 1:2. The colon has a different meaning." Yet the image chosen is clearly a Pentax-A SMC 50mm 1:1.2. If the seller goes to the trouble to explain that the lens is not an ƒ/1.2 lens, how much more effort could it take to put the proper image in? Pentax-M SMC 50 mm 1:2 Lens For Pentax \| eBay

08-22-2011, 09:27 PM	#14
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Sometimes the imperfect listings are treasure-troves, if the seller really doesn't know what they have. I've done well there. I haven't bought/sold for a few weeks/months so I don't know the current market; I'll find out soon enough. But my last few transactions were tough on me as the seller. I'll needfully be very careful how I word my next listings. Careless sellers don't do well. Sometimes they even have threads devoted to ridiculing them. Like here. Last edited by RioRico; 08-22-2011 at 10:04 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Landscape Lazy Views of a Lazy River	Sailor	Post Your Photos!	12	04-17-2011 06:46 AM
Macro My lazy beast :-)	SMeK	Post Your Photos!	3	12-19-2010 01:47 PM
People Lazy Saturday	stash	Post Your Photos!	5	07-07-2010 07:30 AM
People my lazy dog	hoshinokoe	Post Your Photos!	2	12-19-2009 01:25 PM
Lazy Sunday Walk...	Mark Morb	Post Your Photos!	6	09-07-2009 02:06 AM

08-21-2011, 01:01 PM	#2
Philoslothical Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 1,889	IDK, that he spends his whole description clarifying what the lens is, it's not that deceptive. He should have used the right image, but it may have been an honest mistake. 100% feedback says something too. It is overpriced for an M f./2 though. $60 shipping is just asinine.

08-21-2011, 01:20 PM	#3
G_Money Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 598 Original Poster	I guess if all you did was read the ad then it isn't deceptive at all. But it was the image that pulled me in, only to discover that the only thing matching the ad was the 50mm focal length. I don't think there was intent to deceive, but how hard is it to chase down the correct image? And there is no M ƒ/1.2, only K and A.

08-21-2011, 01:45 PM	#4
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	The image is misleading and is not an accurate representation of the product being sold. I'd report it or at least inform the seller.

08-21-2011, 01:49 PM	#5
v5planet Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Seattle Photos: Albums Posts: 1,915	From my one brief experience selling stuff on fleabay, I recall being able to change attached photos with no fee. Given that it's not hard to track down photos of the correct lens -- or heaven forbid, take one of the actual product being sold -- I must raise a cynical eyebrow to this listing. Why bother going to all that trouble of telling potential buyers that the lens being sold is not the lens in the photo when the real solution is even easier? Seems like the seller is just trying to cover his ass while simultaneously drawing in extra attention for a common lens.

08-21-2011, 01:51 PM	#6
v5planet Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Seattle Photos: Albums Posts: 1,915	In my experience staring at listings it is MUCH more common to see people selling a 50 f2 but title the ad as 50 1.2... You can chalk this up to not understanding the difference between "1:2" and "1.2", but I think most of those people know what they're going. This is the first time I've seen a situation like this though where the seller is totally and transparently aware of what the lens really is, but shows a picture of the false item for no credible reason.

08-21-2011, 03:48 PM	#7
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	I automatically interpret "Stock Photo" as "run away". Like the OP, I will notice a photo, and even at 100x100, a 50/1.2 looks a lot different than a 50/2. The lazy seller will often choose the wrong stock photo or pre-filled information because most of the stuff eBay has is for newer equipment. (They don't even have Takumar as a brand.) Stock photos are useless for used items. If a seller can't provide a photo of the item you're buying, he has no business selling on eBay.

08-21-2011, 05:17 PM	#8
alohadave Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Quincy, MA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,024	Originally posted by G_Money I guess if all you did was read the ad then it isn't deceptive at all. But it was the image that pulled me in, only to discover that the only thing matching the ad was the 50mm focal length. I don't think there was intent to deceive, but how hard is it to chase down the correct image? And there is no M ƒ/1.2, only K and A. Hell, I've bid on a 50 1:2 with the correct picture and still thought it was the 1.2. Mistakes happen on both sides.

08-21-2011, 07:17 PM	#9
George Lama Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Buffalo/Rochester, NY Photos: Albums Posts: 1,133	Come on guys, you're asking too much of the average ebay seller. Have you seen the number of out of focus photos of photographic equipment on ebay? It's so bad you can't even think about making out the writing on the lens barrels! Ironic, isn't it?

08-22-2011, 06:40 PM	#10
ripit Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: NewYork Posts: 899	You have to kind of get use to it. There are endless listings with much worse descriptions than this and blurry pics. Many don't tell what mount it is and give every picture possible except anything that could tell you want the mount is (maybe on purpose because they know its an obsolete mount). Then there are the people that list it as the filter that was attached. I bought a "vivitar 52mm skylight 1a" a few weeks ago that was a vivitar series one 70-210mm 3.5 ver 2 for 15$ shipped (olympus mount but it was easy to convert and overall it was in excellent condition). Even with an olympus mount it was worth a whole lot more than this in the condition it was in. There is currently listed a pentax k1000 and tiffen mini zoom lens. Lens is marked tiffen 62mm haze-1. I gather the lens is actually a sigma 39-80mm. Not really worth the 70$ he wants (especially with the terrible description). I often watch some of this poorly listed overpriced junk to see how its relisted. I have seen some occasionally go from a very high buy it now to .99 cent starting price and free shipping. One vivitar lens that I have on the way had a 40$ starting price. It was re-listed with a 1 cent starting price (sniped it for 5.50$ free shipping). Its easier to accept their stupidity (or at least ignorance about lenses, though selling a complex item like a lens when you know nothing about it seems stupid to me) when you can take advantage of it occasionally. Stock pictures just mean a cheaper selling price. If its describes as being in excellent condition then hold them to it. I have even seen lenses with perfect descriptions (all issues like scratches, fungus, oil on blades, haze, rings turning smoothly, aperture snappy etc. addressed and a perfect description of what it is), but a stock photo!!! Of course you have to accept the possibility of getting junk. Sellers with perfect feedback and low sales numbers are often good because if its bad they often want to make it right with little hassle to protect feedback. If not 1 bad feedback trashes their score. Can you tell I have had some serious ebay LBA recently. I got some very nice lenses cheap and overall everything I got was very much worth what I paid overall (in fact quite cheap) due to this kind of stupidity. I got a few that were total garbage but overall it balanced out well in my favor. So what has everyone else seen for bad listings (it might be fun to see who can find the worst listing).

08-22-2011, 08:46 PM	#11
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by alohadave Hell, I've bid on a 50 1:2 with the correct picture and still thought it was the 1.2. Mistakes happen on both sides. Me too. [/me smacks head, runs for oven]

08-22-2011, 09:10 PM	#12
Erd§ Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: SEQ Posts: 323	Originally posted by ripit So what has everyone else seen for bad listings (it might be fun to see who can find the worst listing). I've got two. The first (already sold) claimed to be a 50mm 8-element Super Takumar, even describing where the infra-red mark should be to identify it as such - then doesn't provide a pic of the infra-red mark. The serial number suggests that it is in NO WAY early enough to be an 8-element version: 8-ELEMENT_1 The second (still available as of this post) is an 8-element Super Takumar - and is described as a "9 ELEMENTS RARE ZEISS" 8-ELEMENT_2

08-22-2011, 09:19 PM	#13
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	I think this was previously listed with a higher price. The current price is not outrageous but it's definitely not in "very good condition"; more like "filter ring gone, probably shattered when dropped". PENTAX K-RICOH XR-P LENSE \| eBay

08-22-2011, 09:34 PM	#15
Erd§ Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: SEQ Posts: 323	Originally posted by Just1MoreDave but it's definitely not in "very good condition" PENTAX K-RICOH XR-P LENSE \| eBay I'm sure what they meant was VERY GOOD CONDITION...for a lens that was found under a dirt pile.