Another bad objective from ebay.

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Tue May 11, 2010 5:22 am

This is another one to go back to China, I think.
I'm curious to know what causes this apparent "pitting" of the lens surface. I've tried cleaning it with Toluene and IPA, with no effect.
It's a 20x 0.4 ELWD.
The image is something like a starscape - a single shot here, followed by a stack (with banding). Pmax produces a lot of flaring off the light spots , and Dmap as shown, (with just a little retouching) drew its little contour lines round them.

Bigger here

Cyclops · Post by **Cyclops** » Tue May 11, 2010 5:38 am

Good grief what a mess!!

Bob^3 · Post by **Bob^3** » Tue May 11, 2010 8:55 am

Chris,

I recently sent back a damaged objective (Nikon, 10x M Plan 0.25 NA) to a Chinese vendor that looked like it had been cleaned with a Brillo pad:

Is this perhaps the vendor of your objective?...

http://shop.ebay.com/bazzle33/m.html?_n ... ksid=p4340

Regards,

ps Yours looks like its been sandblasted!

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Tue May 11, 2010 9:12 am

No, it was diyaudio.hk. I've had a few things from him before, including another Mplan 20 ELWD which had been taken apart and put together wrongly - it rattled.

This one looks OK at first glance, I daresay it makes a reasonable image!
Funny they all have "all glass sharp and clear" or somesuch, in the description.

Bob^3 · Post by **Bob^3** » Tue May 11, 2010 9:30 am

Yeah, mine also made a good image, with maybe a slight amount of flare. I wasn't as concerned about the scratches as the fact that much of the AR coating appeared to have been 'scrubbed' away.

PauloM · Post by **PauloM** » Tue May 11, 2010 9:43 am

I feel for you both.
Did any of you note down the serial number of those bad objectives?
IMO, it would be most useful to have a "database" of bad objective's serial numbers, so that fellow members could avoid them in the future. It might also be useful (but might open up a can of worms) to share the experiences with sellers, when such objectives are encountered.

P

Bob^3 · Post by **Bob^3** » Tue May 11, 2010 10:50 am

Did any of you note down the serial number of those bad objectives?

No, but here's the closed listing.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... TQ:US:1123

I've been watching and haven't seen it or a similar item listed. I'm not sure how useful serial numbers would be. They are rarely given in the listing. So, you would still have to buy it and see.

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Tue May 11, 2010 11:12 am

You can usually just unscrew and swap the barrels.

PauloM · Post by **PauloM** » Tue May 11, 2010 11:14 am

Well, unless it's one of those buy-it-now extreme bargains, you can always ask the seller for either the serial number, or a picture of the "back" side of the objective where the number is printed.
But in the end, your best bet is to buy from a seller with a good track record for accepting returns.

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Tue May 11, 2010 1:07 pm

My point was missed perhaps? The barrel, or whatever it's called, has trhe serial number on it. So anyone with a few lenses to sell can put a "bad" number on an obviously pristine lens, and resell the poor lens with an unknown number.

Returning is mandatory, but from most countries there are import duties which would not be recovered, and the postage across the world isn't trivial. It has to be online trackable, otherwise the vendor can say he never received the returned item. People have been known to post empty boxes around the world just to get the shipping receipt of course.

PauloM · Post by **PauloM** » Tue May 11, 2010 2:42 pm

ChrisR wrote:My point was missed perhaps? The barrel, or whatever it's called, has trhe serial number on it. So anyone with a few lenses to sell can put a "bad" number on an obviously pristine lens, and resell the poor lens with an unknown number.

No Chris, as it happened we were both writing our posts at the same time, but yours was posted 2 minutes earlier. So I hadn't read it when I posted mine.

And while it's true that a vicious seller could swap objective barrels, I still believe that such a list would be better than blind luck.

ChrisR wrote: Returning is mandatory, but from most countries there are import duties which would not be recovered, and the postage across the world isn't trivial. It has to be online trackable, otherwise the vendor can say he never received the returned item. People have been known to post empty boxes around the world just to get the shipping receipt of course.

There are dishonest people everywhere, both selling and buying. Fortunately, the type of equipment we discuss here is, IMO, not very attractive from con-man's POV. There are many other categories of items that appeal to a much broader range of people that are better suited for pulling dirty tricks.

P

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Tue May 11, 2010 6:14 pm

I wouldn't share your confidence!

I poked the lens at a bit of bug, but I don't have a control to compare the result with.
The stack is too short so parts are oof, but I don't think any of it's as good as it should be: Pmax (clicky)

morfa · Post by **morfa** » Wed May 12, 2010 12:29 am

I got a bad M Plan 5/0.1 from a chinese seller.

I described the problem and offered to buy the objective for the same amount as the return shipping would cost. That way I didn't have to go to the post office (and the objective was off the market).

I offered to send pictures showing the defects but he was very easily convinced and accepted anyway. A bit too easily perhaps...

Craig Gerard · Post by **Craig Gerard** » Fri May 21, 2010 7:18 pm

Chris,

The stacked wing result does look a bit 'cloudy'; but I've had similar results with new objectives.

A few single frame images may have provided an initial indication of the image quality of the objective.

However, the images showing the damage to the glass and barrel are rather scary to say the least.

Did you resolve the issue with the seller?

Craig

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Sat May 22, 2010 11:55 am

It sharpens up quite well in fact. Much of the cloudiness comes from ny stack being too shallow

Resolved? Not yet.....