[clickclick]

. Contacting Ebay for a refund is a nightmare.

I've never had a problem with eBay backing me when I purchased something that was not as described. I've had the seller's refute me, but I've always been able to provide photos of the items, and have always received a refund. I would certainly open a claim through eBay on this. Your photos clearly show the optics and other condition were not as advertised.

[Turbotak]

Wish I knew of some camera convention shows in South Jersey. Tired of not getting what is advertised. I rather inspect the glass myself.

I've been to two conventions looking for vintage glass and all of the lenses I found were in pretty used condition, with all the front elements being scratched to a visible degree. The sellers were all asking for over what a mint copy on ebay goes for. Experiences differ for everyone, but I would still choose ebay over a convention. I usually look for lenses that are listed in mint or near mint condition. These sellers that have descriptions like the one you posted usually have "excellent" as barely above fair condition. It usually goes something like

As Is
Good
Excellent
Excellent +
Excellent ++
Excellent +++
Near Mint
Mint

I would expect a lens to have all the defects you pictured when listed as "excellent", just saying. See if it affects image quality, I bet it doesn't. I have one early 60s lens that has heavy scratches all over the front element, loose components, rusted screws, dust everywhere, and it performs the same as my cleaner glass.

[boriscleto]

Remember that in a Japanese listing EX+++++ means that it may or may not have been found under a haystack in a barnyard.

[tom1803]

The only problem I see with return or discount is that it appears that you have already attempted to do a self-repair and taken the lens apart.

The seller can claim the damage is due to your actions.

[pepperberry farm]

The only problem I see with return or discount is that it appears that you have already attempted to do a self-repair and taken the lens apart.

The seller can claim the damage is due to your actions.

^^^this^^^

if the self-repair had not been attempted, I would have suggested the buyer immediately contact the seller for remediation.... but now that the lens is no longer in the condition as received, good luck...

[aslyfox]

^^^this^^^

if the self-repair had not been attempted, I would have suggested the buyer immediately contact the seller for remediation.... but now that the lens is no longer in the condition as received, good luck...

the OP should still try

nothing ventured nothing gained

I hope that he has photos of the equipment as received to show the damage pre existed the self repair attempt

[tom1803]

Also, how the seller handles claims can be swayed by the attitude shown by the buyer.

Hopefully, the OP didn't accuse the seller of being a "liar" right off the bat. Calling someone a liar implies that that person is dishonest. Most Japanese merchants pride themselves on running an honest business and being accused of lies will undoubtedly make them less inclined to be helpful.

Now, I'm not saying that this particular seller had no bad intentions, I just don't know, but it usually helps to begin any negotiation with politeness.

Diplomacy is the key.

[UncleVanya]

The only problem I see with return or discount is that it appears that you have already attempted to do a self-repair and taken the lens apart.

The seller can claim the damage is due to your actions.

Where did you read that? He mentions the possibility that it might be possible to remove the front element and clean it, but I never saw any suggestion he had done so.

[tom1803]

the OP should still try

nothing ventured nothing gained

I hope that he has photos of the equipment as received to show the damage pre existed the self repair attempt

I feel that honesty should work both ways.

If the OP has taken apart the lens, them he accepted the responsibility of ownership and should not attempt to return it. The best he can hope for will be a small compensation.

---------- Post added 03-03-19 at 10:36 PM ----------

Where did you read that? He mentions the possibility that it might be possible to remove the front element and clean it, but I never saw any suggestion he had done so.

Please see the photos. The last two photos show front part of lens only. Though, admittedly it doesn't look like the Sonnar lens.

[Prince Harbinger]

The only problem I see with return or discount is that it appears that you have already attempted to do a self-repair and taken the lens apart.

The seller can claim the damage is due to your actions.

I never did a self repair. I possibly could if I order a spanner wrench. What you see is the condition I recieved the lens.

---------- Post added 03-03-19 at 08:23 AM ----------

^^^this^^^

if the self-repair had not been attempted, I would have suggested the buyer immediately contact the seller for remediation.... but now that the lens is no longer in the condition as received, good luck...

There was no self repair done on my part. The only thing I did was shine a flashlight to examine the optics.

---------- Post added 03-03-19 at 08:30 AM ----------

Also, how the seller handles claims can be swayed by the attitude shown by the buyer.

Hopefully, the OP didn't accuse the seller of being a "liar" right off the bat. Calling someone a liar implies that that person is dishonest. Most Japanese merchants pride themselves on running an honest business and being accused of lies will undoubtedly make them less inclined to be helpful.

Now, I'm not saying that this particular seller had no bad intentions, I just don't know, but it usually helps to begin any negotiation with politeness.

Diplomacy is the key.

There's no honor in a theif. They'll smile in your face and stab you in the back. He has 97% on his feedback. Will soon be less when I give him my negative. I should have never gave him the benefit of the doubt. Next time I'll look for 100% positive.

---------- Post added 03-03-19 at 08:36 AM ----------

I feel that honesty should work both ways.

If the OP has taken apart the lens, them he accepted the responsibility of ownership and should not attempt to return it. The best he can hope for will be a small compensation.

---------- Post added 03-03-19 at 10:36 PM ----------



Please see the photos. The last two photos show front part of lens only. Though, admittedly it doesn't look like the Sonnar lens.

It is a Sonnar lens. Identical to the one that is reviewed on this site. I showed the front part of the lens for the damaged element. I didn't feel it was a necessity to show the back element since it doesn't appear flawed.

If you had attempted disassembly in order to determine the cause and extent of the damage, that would in itself be a compensable item of damages. The following is for your information only, not a suggestion. My view is that you have had an educational process that cost you money, and helped to educate the consuming public by posting your comments. I'd say, suck it up and get on with life and don't buy any more used equipment sight unseen. Blast that seller with negative feedback. Maybe report it to the Postal Service Inspection Service because it's probably an instance of criminal mail fraud.

Do I understand correctly that your seller is located in Japan? The official State Dept. website says this about service of legal process upon Japanese nationals (what it means is that you can sue the *astard in the U.S. subject to your own state's rules about "long arm service of process"):

"Japan is a party to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters. Complete information on the operation of the Convention, including an interactive online request form are available on the Hague Conference website. Requests should be completed in duplicate and submitted with two sets of the documents to be served, and translations, directly to Japan’s Central Authority for the Hague Service Convention. The person in the United States executing the request form should be either an attorney or clerk of court. The applicant should include the titles attorney at law or clerk of court on the identity and address of applicant and signature/stamp fields. Attorneys should cite Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or comparable state statute permitting attorneys to execute service requests. Japan formally objected to service under Article 10, and does not permit service via postal channels. For additional information see the Hague Conference Service Convention web page and the Hague Conference Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Hague Service Convention. See also Japan’s response to the 2008 Hague Conference questionnaire on the practical operation of the Service Convention."

[SSGGeezer]

Between Ebay and Paypal, you should have no issues getting your money back based on these images. All this chat about self repair is just noise. Let the process go through and let us know what the end result is. If negative I am certain that folks here will reduce their usage of the system that fails to get your money back.
If Paypal fails, there is always Venmo or others.

[Prince Harbinger]

Currently still waiting for Paypals response. If they side with him for whatever reason. That means I'm stuck with this lens. If I have to keep it. I will be forced to clean it myself. With that being said does anyone here know if the front element of the Contax Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm f/2.8 AEJ has a cemented element? If it does than I am screwed and won't be able to clean. Because the fugus would likely be sandwiched inbetween both elements.

[kayakfari]

IMHO many of the Japanese eBay sellers' lens stock is sub-par and their descriptions deceptive. I regularly see a lens with fungus inside described as "exc++". Yes, I suppose OTHER than the fungus the lens is in excellent shape .. lol
The price savings (if any) don't hold up to the hassle of having to return it later and I think that's part of what they are counting on. You may still be able to get a partial refund.. good luck!

[Prince Harbinger]

Update! I was able to get the refund for one of the lenses. I had to go through Paypal. Now the seller is asking if I can revise the feedback. He said since he refunded me that I should. Overall it was still a negative experience. I had to get Paypal involved inorder for him to refund me. With that being said should I bother revising the feedback? What would be the consequences if I didn't? I feel his potential customers should be warned about him. I don't think he deserves a five star review do you?