If you were selling this lens how would you rate it on a scale from 1 to 10 and Mint? I would really appreciate some honest feedback on this.
KEH EX+ condition, or 9/10. Marks on front of barrel from using a Lens Hood. I tend to be conservative. Over 20 years of buying experience from KEH.
More important- what is the glass like?
Why not just describe it and show the images? There are so many ways to rate lenses and they are all insufficient. I much rather get a detailed and honest description than a shady number like "8+" or something which actually means nothing as I don't know what the seller counts as interesting.
Mint I guess.
If the glass is flawless but there are marks for the hood, i would not call it mint. Mint to me means look new. Unless they come with marks new, it does not qualify. The number system has always had too much leeway for definition.
exc- due to scratches.
forget the numbers, nobody knows what they mean.
If you go buy KEH rating system, it would be EX or EX+, however with KEH their scale goes from EX to BGN with nothing in between.
My opinion is that it would be EX- due to the finish.
I've owned a bunch of Zeiss lenses and while the optics may be stellar, the durability of the finish isn't very good imo.
I would describe it;
barrel shows signs of use,
describe mechanical ... i.e. focus smooth.
Describing it in so many words is better than a number or condition rating. People tend to put yeast in their ratings.
Definitely not mint in my opinion.
I could be wrong but I thought MINT was a grading term that came from coin collectors. Meaning as a coin came from the mint . IMHO it is incorrectly used ..all to often in the favor of the seller.
The KEH grading system is decent ...they have been buying and selling used equipment for a very long time ..its their business (they are not a traditional retailer) . They are careful (at least in my experience) to fairly value items . They can really only concentrate on cosmetics as they surely can t test every item .
While some buyers are looking at the cosmetics as “not important” they are indicative of how a items has been used and significantly affect resale pricing. When a camera or a lens has any significant dent ..how do you know it hasn t affect alignment,calibration ..unless you have the test equipment ..you generally don t.
Photos are the best equalizer but they need to show any blemish . A good question is to ask the seller to describe anything that would distinguish the lens from new . Call it LN ...could I put it on a shelf and sell it for new ? If not its not LN so whats the difference .
The lens shown is no better than excellent because of the paint loss on the exterior of the lens mount and the scrapping where the hood has been mounted. It does not in anyway look new or mint ..rather it is a typical used lens . There are benefits from buyer a typical camera lens from a forum member. I have bought from individuals because they are very good at selecting say a new lens and sending back anything that isn t prefect. If the focus mount is smooth and the glass is perfect ..could be a good buy at the right price . But condition affects the price both to you and if you resell.
I use mint to describe something as good as new from store, regardless of the usage.
Based on what I see, 8.0-8.5/10 Ex condition. I'd hesitate to call it Ex+.
IMHO, definitely not mint. And since I am conservative about grading, not Exc+ either. Looks like an Exc but I also agree with the posters who said just describe what you have and provide photos.
Last edited by weinschela; 30th October 2011 at 12:14.
Selection of work: http://weinschela.zenfolio.com
Does anyone else agree with me that the whole Exc+, Exc, Exc- thing is meaningless because the condition of a lens either excels or it doesn't? (And for that matter excels relative to what?)
For example I could describe the condition of a lens as "superb" but it wouldn't occur to call it "superb+" or "superb-" because it wouldn't mean anything.
I will continue to describe the condition of photographic equipment as accurately as I can in real sentences with supplementary photographs and hopefully without needing to resort to shorthand that introduces terms referenced to unknown norms.
I invite other sellers to do the same.
Definitely not mint....
I'm guessing that you just purchased the lens and it was described as "mint." How far off am I?
When I bought it, this is how it was described to me:
I just want to make sure I am not expecting too much or being finicky.The lens is in pretty much new condition except the replaced lens cap.
When I read the description I was assuming like new.
I don't find the description to be accurate.
Yeah, the condition of the lens was over-stated. This has happened to me twice, but only one was significant. The seller and I worked out a partial refund, and I was satisfied.
I'm with Bob on this:
ex- (due to scratches)
- - - - -
Expressed with numbers I would rate it:
7 (out of 10)
Of course, there is a big difference between "like new" and "new." The "like new" has been driven out of the showroom, and that's when the biggest price drop occurred. It somewhat depends on the "new" price of the lens; what was that price?
If it is $900 for a ZF 21/2.8 (if I am not mistaken) I wouldn't complain
Edit: O never mind, it is 18/3.5
Last edited by aleksanderpolo; 31st October 2011 at 10:11.
That lens isn't like new nor even pretty much like new. It is maybe optically excellent but with user wear. If it was described as excellent condition with some minor brasing then that might be ok. As you know Zeiss and Leica glass is hard to keep as new if you actually use it vs stroke it or store in a cupboard. Some minor brasing isn't a problem but it should be reflected in the price and condition description.
I'd go back to seller and negotiate some settlement unless you got a killer deal in the first place. Like new it definitely isn't. Like new should be perfect without any cosmetic flaws. Period.