[Paulmohai]

Never had trouble even online

[sandbasser]

Caveat emptor - Always...but...sometimes you take a chance and get lucky or not

[tibbitts]

My limited experience buying here on the forum has been excellent. Mixed but mostly positive on Ebay. My Ebay Tamron "like new" 70-300 really was... like new and a good copy. My Ebay Tamron 28-105 was ok, and not claimed to be "like new", but had too much barrel wobble (at the wide, non-extended end only, which seems odd.)

I think as we've moved on from 6mp to much more, older lenses (and even some new ones) are going to find it harder to compete, and getting a good copy is going to be more and more important, so for an expensive newer lens I'd only buy from a no-hassle retailer for easy exchanges (and I've exchanged a lot of lenses.) For $50-75, well, not a big risk and kind of in the hobby-expense category.

[TaoMaas]

I think as we've moved on from 6mp to much more, older lenses (and even some new ones) are going to find it harder to compete...

Well...yes and no. It was always known that most film lenses had the ability to out-resolve any film stock available at the time. So they hold up pretty well in the digital age. If you're just talking 'focal length-to-focal length' and discussing IQ...yeah, modern lenses will win every time. But if you dial cost into the equation, suddenly it's nowhere near as clear-cut and we're forced to decide if a marginal difference is worth 5-10X the cost. I say, buy digital lenses for your most used ranges, supplement the other ranges with film lenses, and replace them when you're able to do so.

[tibbitts]

Well...yes and no. It was always known that most film lenses had the ability to out-resolve any film stock available at the time. So they hold up pretty well in the digital age. If you're just talking 'focal length-to-focal length' and discussing IQ...yeah, modern lenses will win every time. But if you dial cost into the equation, suddenly it's nowhere near as clear-cut and we're forced to decide if a marginal difference is worth 5-10X the cost. I say, buy digital lenses for your most used ranges, supplement the other ranges with film lenses, and replace them when you're able to do so.

It's a good idea to cover the most-used ranges with better lenses first. All I'm saying that if you do buy a modern/expensive lens you want to buy it from a source that won't question you returning it because it's not up to what you expect. Maybe the previous owner was happy with the lens but just wasn't into pixel-peeping in corners/edges, for example. You don't want to have to demonstrate that the focusing ring has fallen off or something (that actually happened to me with a brand new lens) to be able to return it without any fees. Amazon/B&H/Adorama/KEH will be ok with you sending a lens back for that reason; private party experiences may vary.

[TaoMaas]

All I'm saying that if you do buy a modern/expensive lens you want to buy it from a source that won't question you returning it because it's not up to what you expect.

I totally agree!

Maybe the previous owner was happy with the lens but just wasn't into pixel-peeping in corners/edges, for example.

And then....eh, you lost me. The outer corners/edges are of no real consequence to me. I was at the opening of a photography exhibit and was visiting with the featured photographer. A friend of mine came up, asked what camera the photographer was using, and then started talking about all the pixel-peeping/corner edge stuff regarding the camera and lens combo this guy was using. The photographer listened politely for a minute or two, then said, "Ya know....I don't give a sh*t about any of that. I just like the images my gear gives me and I go with that." It is well worth noting that the photographer whose images were on display has made his living doing this stuff for about 30 years and it's taken him all over the world. The guy who was questioning him talks a great game, but is very hesitant to even submit his pics for local competition...and I've know him for about 20 years!

[dadipentak]

"Ya know....I don't give a sh*t about any of that. I just like the images my gear gives me and I go with that."

I heartily agree!

[UserAccessDenied]

99.999% of my camera gear (minus SD cards) have been purchased second hand...

I have not had issues yet and the sellers on the PF Marketplace seem to stand by their word most of the time.

If the lens is coming from the original owner, I assume they took the time to get a good copy when buying it new.
Also assuming their lens is a good copy from the start, anything that comes up when I receive it is likely caused from shipping and you get to deal with the postal service.
Always insure your gear!

We just went through this on the Marketplace with a trade... My lens arrived at the members house with decentering issues and a damaged box. USPS paid the insurance I had purchased in order to get the lens repaired.

It's always a gamble.

I just picked up a K-3ii and a DA*300 from the marketplace and they are both like new, excellent condition.
And I saved a few hundred bucks getting them used!

[tibbitts]

I totally agree!



And then....eh, you lost me. The outer corners/edges are of no real consequence to me. I was at the opening of a photography exhibit and was visiting with the featured photographer. A friend of mine came up, asked what camera the photographer was using, and then started talking about all the pixel-peeping/corner edge stuff regarding the camera and lens combo this guy was using. The photographer listened politely for a minute or two, then said, "Ya know....I don't give a sh*t about any of that. I just like the images my gear gives me and I go with that." It is well worth noting that the photographer whose images were on display has made his living doing this stuff for about 30 years and it's taken him all over the world. The guy who was questioning him talks a great game, but is very hesitant to even submit his pics for local competition...and I've know him for about 20 years!

For every pro that might not care about edges/corners, there's another that tests multiple samples of every lens before choosing one, primarily looking for across-the-frame sharpness. It depends on the subject; if you're photographing rock cliff walls or hillsides with foliage, it's important for the the image to be equally sharp all across the frame. Even at fairly small sizes, discrepancies stand out, and become more obvious at larger sizes. For portraits or wildlife photos with an intentionally blurred background where the subject is mostly centered, maybe it doesn't matter that much.

It could also be that even during his long career, this particular pro happened to never have run into seriously deficient lenses. When he says he's happy with the images his gear gives him, maybe it's because he's been using only the very best gear.

[bigted]

One of my best and most favourite lens I bought used in a thrift store. I bought it on a whim and knowing absolutely nothing about the lens and what it was capable of. It was a Sigma 400mm 5.6 Lens - complete with both original caps, case and a bonus pack of Kodak lens cleaning papers. Had I not taken the chance I would have missed out on such now much loved and well used lens.

I always go with what can I afford to lose, can I return it if not satisfied and how useful will it be - as there is no sense just picking it up because I can. I have one autofocus lens that is fussy and needs the connections cleaned regularly that is annoying, but knowing that it, it does perform once the connections are clean. Otherwise everything else that has been bought used has been as described.

The only thing that stops me from buying more used lenses is a chronic shortage of funds. As I have to pinch pennies to save up for my gear.

[cyberjunkie]

I'm just curious how much of a chance you take in buying a used lens. I read quite a
few lens reviews and it seems more than a few of lens being tested have to be returned
due to some kind of defect. It's no problem with a new lens which is under warranty
but a used lens is a different story.

My experience:
almost all the > 100 PK/M42/T2 lenses present in the list linked in my signature ("lenses used with DSLRs"), plus a good number of large format lenses i actively used for professional work (now i collect them, i have > 200), plus Leica 35mm, plus the medium format ones used over time (Pentax 6x7, Mamiya, Bronica, Pentacon Six) were bougth used.
One hand is enough to count those which were truly defective.
None was beyond repair. Mainly it was a problem of incorrect reassembly or loose elements.
Even the very few affected by fungal growth could be cleaned, leaving no etched glass.
Of course i am excluding leaf shutters, which often need a good CLA.

Taking into account only PK/M42 lenses - aren't we on pentaxforums.com? - if i remember correctly i purchased only 6 brand new objectives. Two were kit lenses. Two were sovietic lenses. BTW, three of them were sold afterwards.
All the others were purchased second hand!
NONE had optical problems, a couple had problematic diaphragm, another couple needed focusing helicoid relube or resetting infinity.
Two needed a slight mod to be fitted on a modern Pentax digital camera.
ALL were purchased with full knowledge of of the work that had to be done.
Maybe i've been extraordinarily lucky, but i don't think so.
A totally different matter is sample variations. With VERY old lenses, or with optics that weren't originally assembled to strict mechanical tolerances, two apparently identical items could show a significant difference in performance. But let's make it clear, i'm referring to SOME sixties/seventies lenses, mostly M42.

Please let's not be too paranoid about lenses.
Two short stories, one i've been told and one mine:
- a friend, who's my trusted repairman and a great collector of stereo cameras, once told me that the child of a customer once badly scribed with the tip of a nail the front lens of a 55mm Micro Nikkor. They tested the lens, shaded from direct light, with an optical target. They couldn't tell the difference from a perfectly fine one!
- i bought a recent Sigma 35mm f/1.4 AF, with bits of molten firework stuck to the front lens. I tried to clean the lens, but the glass was still etched, and with artificial light sources within the picture it flares badly. I guess i have to give up and send the lens to Sigma for repair Of course i knew the problem when i bought it, and the price was very very good.
I reported these two experiences to evidence that even some very noticeable damage could have almost no effect on performance, while a less evident damage, which affects a much larger area, could make a whole lot of difference.

All in all, according to my experience any modern lens with no evident external damage and making no strange noises, should be safe to buy.
If you are into vintage lenses, and love their "old look" rendition, a little extra care (and some knowledge) is needed.

Cheers

P

[Mothballs]

If you're buying from Russia, expect to have a 50% failure rate. Two dead MIR-1, one working one (Now dead), half a 120mm 1.8 (Don't ask) fololwed by a full one and and a very nice enlarger lens

[TaoMaas]

When he says he's happy with the images his gear gives him, maybe it's because he's been using only the very best gear.

You're right...he does use the best gear. It's a business expense and his livelihood depends on it so he SHOULD buy the best gear available. That's what made the whole thing ridiculous. We were standing in the middle of an exhibition promoting this photographer's new coffee table book he'd just released and some guy is trying to criticize his gear based solely on a report he'd read in a magazine. It was just a very stark contrast between believing in pixel-peeping reports or real world results.

[cyberjunkie]

.... It was just a very stark contrast between believing in pixel-peeping reports or real world results.

Yes, all this pixel peeping craze could be fun sometimes, but often it gets pretty ridiculous.
All those who had the fortune to see large prints by Adams or Weston, and many other great photographers, had their jaws dropped
The lenses they used had some field curvature, some distortion, and were slightly undercorrected for spherical aberration.
Saying that landscape photography needs very good corner performance is quite a stretch!
Aerial photography, yes. Extreme macro, yes.
Not travel photography, nor reportage, nor landscape.

Saying that top professional photographers use to look for the best sample of that one XYZ lens is just propagating an urban legend.
Pros are like violinists. Some develop an almost fetish attraction for the tools of their trade, and own many of them. All first class.
Others own just one or two, and are perfectly satisfied with the tool they have chosen, and have come to know extremely well. They would never swap it for another one.

Back in the old days when i was doing still life for advertising/catalogs, the best work i have seen was done with a single coated "separable" Symmar 300mm, on 8x10"/18x24cm.
The best portraits were done with an uncoated Heliar, substantially identical to the 1911 sample i have at home!
Classy primes retain their value, and their photographic worth, for long time.
TTH "Cooke" lenses built during the first decade of the last century have mechanical tolerances unmatched by any lens made in Russia/Ukraine, or by cheap japanese ones from the seventies.
Zooms are a completely different stuff. Even when very well built, vintage zooms can't match modern ones, with optical layouts calculated with powerful computers and with today's optical engineering tools.
BUT... still today the movies shot in 35mm with an expensive Panavision camera are usually filmed using three cases of zooms/primes: one has the Cooke's, the second has the Angenieux's, the last the Zeiss ones.
All very expensive, but mostly vintage.

With regard to discontinued/vintage Pentax lenses (but i personally enjoy the best third party ones as well), i have seen online wonderful pics taken with a Sony full frame.
All the A Star, a good number of selected A/M/K glasses, and even a few of the best M42 ones, don't seem to show their limits on a 36 megapixel sensor. Or just very little.
Even some old optics with a "strong character" give excellent results, if we forget for a minute about lines per mm, and we concentrate on bokeh, "plastic" rendition and transition between in-focus and out-of-focus.

Last point:
be aware that the price of lenses with FF coverage will rise very soon

Cheers

P

[Sandy Hancock]

I have recently placed an apparently successful bid for an FA20/2.8 on buyee.jp and I must admit I'm more nervous about that transaction than any before it. We shall se....

Just a quick update on this. My concerns were ill-founded. The lens arrived today (within a week of placing my bid) and it's absolutely *mint*, with original caps, pouch, box and manual. Glass and externals are immaculate. Now to get shooting with it!