Scratched lens - price off?

freecom2

freecom2

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,326
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,
If you bought a lens that turned out to have a scratch on the front element, how much % would you consider an acceptable partial refund?
 
How long is a piece of string?

I think you need to provide more details to get a reasonable response.. What's the lens value - and how big is the scratch - and how different is the received product to the advertised product... for example.
 
cymruchris said:
How long is a piece of string?

I think you need to provide more details to get a reasonable response.. What's the lens value - and how big is the scratch - and how different is the received product to the advertised product... for example.
Click to expand...

Absolutely :thumbs:

~£200, a centimetre (roughly), wasn't mentioned in the description (in all fairness to the seller, it genuinely looks like it just wasn't noticed).
 
I think I'd possibly be done with it and just get it replaced ;)
 
As Chris says there's a lot of details needed to determine what is fair tbh but probably somewhere in the region of 25%
 
Are we talking heavy gouge scratch or light surface scratch?
 
Light surface scratch.

Sorry for the original lack of detail, wasn't intentional - just wanted to know general thoughts surrounding it!
 
Guessing it's a used lens? I'd suggest thinking about what you'd sell it for with the 'known' fault - and work out the difference between...

If it's a desirable lens that's popular - then maybe 15% - if it's a common as muck lens - maybe 25%...
 
Have you tried it to see how badly the scratch shows up in yer shots? Try it stopped down, towards a light source (the sun). You might find that the 'light surface scratch' renders the lens unusable on sunny days. But then sunny days....? It may not be that much of a problem after all..
 
Thanks for the thoughts.

I'm not concerned about how the scratch affects performance, more that the lens was not as described.
 
freecom2 said:
Thanks for the thoughts.

I'm not concerned about how the scratch affects performance, more that the lens was not as described.
Click to expand...

Golly that's a strange thing to say.

Do we take it that you've used the lens and the scratch has no effect on the images, even shooting across, or into, the light?
 
tikkathreebarrel said:
Golly that's a strange thing to say.

Do we take it that you've used the lens and the scratch has no effect on the images, even shooting across, or into, the light?
Click to expand...

It can be taken to mean different things, which is probably why you think it's such a strange thing to say - I meant as in, I have other lenses which have scratches on their front elements (n.b. they were always accurately described and the sellers were upfront about this) and I have always been happy with their performance. I don't suspect this lens will be any different.

I'll have a hood on the lens anyway.
 
With prices of second hand lens varying, I think it would be better if we knew what the retail price of the lens is, as I see most second hand lens can get back what a new one would cost near most the time.

If I paid near full price, I would expect it to be as described and if it then came scratched I would be seeking a refund or a hefty price reduction, maybe 30%, if not I think I would send back, but it all depends if the retail price is a lot higher than you paid.
 
Last edited:
I got an 85mm lens with a lazy iris, and got sufficient of a rebate to cover the repair cost. Since you can't really repair a scratch, that approach won't work, so I'd have said send it back. But you already have some lenses with scratches, so you can clearly tolerate this.

The only other approach I can think of is: what would your maximum bid have been if it had been accurately described? If you would have bid the same, given you think it's been missed rather than deliberate misleading, then let it be! If less, ask for that, and if the seller says no, send it back!
 
Thanks for all the thoughts, much appreciated. Will take them into account and go from here :thumbs:
 
Something else I would take into consideration is the kind of lens it is:

On an ultra wide angle a scratch like that might be quite problematic (ie have a noticeable effect on the images).

On a telephoto it is likely to have no effect whatsoever, other than an immeasurable reduction in contrast, perhaps).

Also, a scratch on the rear element is much more likely to cause problems than one on the front (more likely to be in greater focus), again relating more to a shorter focal length.

I don't have experience of lenses with scratches on the rear element, only on the front, as follows (all prime Nikkor lenses):

35mm f2: looked like an absolute dog with fine surface scratches all over the front element: never noticed any issues whatsoever, compared to the pristine version I owned later

85mm f2: slightly better looking but still lots of fine scratches (from cleaning): never noticed any issues whatsoever

180mm f2.8: one big scratch on front element (similar to the one you describe): never noticed any issues whatsoever (what a bloody sharp and contrasty lens this is, by the way).

Don't know if that helps.

However, in terms of negotiating with the seller, I would ask for something like 25% off and then maybe settle a little lower.
 
Does the listing go into detail about lens condition? Is the scratch noticeable at a glance? If no to both I don't think you can reasonably expect much back.

Either that or see if he'll just do a straight refund and send it back.
 
Not a discount but a refund, surely. What use is a lens with a scratch on it, it will only cause flare.
 
Thanks for the thoughts. I'm a stickler for accurate descriptions (my own sales threads tend to be pretty brutally honest). That said, I don't think a scratch, on certain lenses (as pointed out by TheGreatSoprendo), is game-over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top