How much to devalue a lens with fungus?

Egg Born Son

Egg Born Son

Veteran
I just received a lens I bought on ebay (Isco Widescreen 2000 anamorphic). I've been after one of these for almost a year. It was described as:

In near perfect original condition, having been stored in the original packaging when not in use.
No marks, scratches or visible lens degradation or contamination.
Click to expand...

It has three obvious spots of fungus (1-1.5mm diameter) and under close inspection with a flashlight half a dozen smaller spots (less than 1mm) and at least as many starter colonies with just a few 'hairs'. A constellation would be an accurate description. So I definitely have grounds for a refund and know that's what I should do.

However, against my better judgement and because I've been chasing one of these for so long, I'm half considering keeping it (subject to a significant partial refund). The fungus is presently not image effecting. I've used a lens that was pitted to an almost identical degree with no more issues than it flared a little more. It will likely be several years before it even begins to be a noticeable issue. But I know it will degrade now it's started and no amount of cleaning or care will stop that process. So the investment value is shot. I paid fair market value and as an anamorphic the majority of that value is in it's resale prospects, these lenses couldn't be given away 5 years ago.

I already have two lenses with fungus, one in slightly better condition than this, the other a 200mm Nikkor that is 100% fungus, looks like frosted glass, can't see through with the naked eye yet the resultant image is merely 'a bit soft'. So I will certainly be able to get several years use and functionality out of this lens. If the seller is willing to absorb that loss on investment I could be tempted to be it's last owner, knowing that when I am honest about the fungus (which will also be worse by then) it will only return me a fraction of my investment when most anamorphic owners can expect a small profit on resale due to demand.


So to get down to the actual question here, what percentage discount would you expect to see on a contaminated lens? I'm thinking the devaluation would be about 75%, more if the lens wasn't in otherwise good condition. I paid $600. These lenses usually go for $500-750 so that's fair market value. I'd accept a $450 refund in a heartbeat for the remaining functionality and be happy, $400 back (67%) could tempt me but would give me pause. Does that sound about right? The seller may not even entertain a partial refund but I want to know what's reasonable before I contact them.

Thanks guys, and feel free to call me an idiot for even considering this in your replies. I know I am.
 
Devaluation should be at least 75% but the seller will never agree. Better to return it and leave detailed negative feedback in your comments (in case the listing was private) so he can't attempt to foist it on another unsuspecting buyer.

Edit: Even if the seller did agree, he'd probably report you as a predatory buyer out of spite; proceed cautiously.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. I've contacted seller for refund but left the door open for him to offer an arrangement. What a pain, first time in 200+ ebay purchases I've had to return something. Going to be out of pocket over $50.
 
I would tell the seller that he needs to reimburse the original shipping because the lens is not as described. I'm guessing that's the $50 to which you were referring. Be careful not to threaten, just keep to the facts. Remember that Ebay employees have access to all of your messages.

Don't agree to cancel the transaction until you've received all of the money back. If you later agree to cancel it, you won't be able to leave feedback. At the same time, if he refunds all the money and you still leave negative feedback (he lied about its condition after all) he might report you to Ebay out of spite. Ebay is cracking down on bad buyers but based on your stated history, that won't jive with what he's saying. As long as you've given positive feedback with 5 star detailed review on previous transactions, he'll only be digging himself in further.

If you read the discussion boards at Ebay, you'd be amazed at how many sellers would blame you for this. They'll say, "Well, you knew Ebay is a flea market," or "How could you leave negative feedback if he reimbursed you? Maybe it was a mistake." It's become beyond absurd but the fact of the matter is leaving negative feedback is dangerous for a buyer.

You could also circumvent the process by disputing the charge with your credit card company (if that's what funded your Paypal transaction). Ebay frowns on this (obviously) and the CC company may make you take it to an expert for documentation but, based on your statements, it's a slam dunk case. This way you could easily get refunded everything and just be out the return shipping.
 
Thanks for the info. Some sage advice about ebay there. It all comes down to people in the end, those that want to be an arsehole will usually manage to be so.

While the buyer has questioned my assessment of the lens, he has offered to refund based on satisfaction regardless (although not for the shipping either way). No offer of compensation or friendly response but hasn't been rude or obstructive either. I didn't have to ask for the refund. While disappointed I figured that it's better than losing $450+ dollars on resale value and I really can't handle another drawn out dispute right now, having some major issues with my employer that looks like it's going to end up in court (they have broken the law in regards to my employment contract) and have a couple of other stressful things going on so figured I'd take the hit and seek the easier path.

So I was on the way to the post office when I walked passed one of the better camera shops in my town and on impulse took it in for an assessment. They had a look and confirmed fungus instantly. Then took it out the back before I could tell them to leave it alone (need to send it back in the condition it arrived in) and 15 minutes later it came back spotless. The most beautiful piece of glass I had ever seen. I can't believe it looked this good out of the factory. I had a chat to the tech that cleaned it and he reckoned that even though fungus is usually the kiss of death, in this rare instance he's confident it won't return. It was all on the outside of the lens (internals are spotless, not even dust), it was surface and formed around specks of dust, so recent it hasn't started to penetrate the coating and that his cleaning solution should have killed it completely.

So I'm now quite tempted to keep the lens. It took ages to get one and right now it looks so pretty it's giving me the horn! My judgement is definitely impaired. I got slugged for the cleaning and signed-for postage will be expensive (won't risk having it 'not turn up' - no lens, no money, no recourse) so if I send it back now I'll be $130+ out of pocket and I'll be sending back a mint lens. Can't get a refund on any aspect other than for good will now because the evidence is gone. While I have a photo of the fungus there's no serial number on the front of the Isco. The tech gave a conservative 90% chance the fungus won't return and he seems to have a good rep, he had a line of pro customers and they all raved about him (planning on taking the rest of my lenses to him next week). So I'm inclined to keep it. I've contacted the seller and he's agreed to give me the weekend to think it over.

Has anyone else had a lens that got fungus but they caught it early enough and was able to clean it off permanently?
 
Working it out with the seller on a mutually amicable basis is the best course if possible, whether it is a refund or price comp.
We bought a large format Epson printer off ebay that got damaged in shipment due to poor packing. The seller refunded us and filed a claim for the shipping damages. We got to keep the printer anyway as UPS did not want it.

See if the guy will pay for your cleaning costs.

Exposing lenses to mid day sun or full spectrum tanning lamps for UVA/UVB will kill fungus spores and prevent growth, though it won't cure active fungus colonies.
 
The plot thickens, the seller went out to check the cost of a lens cleaning and found the cost to be 1.5x the price I paid (making me feel pretty good about my new lens guy, I'll definitely be taking my whole set for a service now). He then suggested that if the fungus comes back to just clean it again and put it back on ebay! I was flabbergasted. If and when I sell it, I will be disclosing the known history of this lens even if the fungus never returns. Ebay doesn't work without trust and besides it will probably be one of you guys that buys it and you're my peeps.

The seller has 100% feedback on almost 200 transactions so it could have been a throwaway comment but it certainly made me less inclined to roll over. I'm out of pocket $130 if I send it back and I don't want to have to find another one. I was tempted to just cave, avoid the hassle and bear the risk (and call it a life lesson) before he said this. On balance ebay still saves me more than the occasional bad transaction costs me.

I still want to believe this guy is genuine, I've never had an issue with UK sellers before and I don't want to have to add it to my 'be wary' list. I buy most my stuff from Germany because they have been impeccably honest to a man (or woman) over some 40 purchases. They never play games, such as withdrawing a no reserve auction when they don't like the price and I often get automatic discounts based on imperfections they find while packing, most of which I've been unable to find myself, even on close inspection and being told where to look. I've found the Netherlands to equally honest but the Germans always seem to go the extra mile. Thanks Germany. Contrary to my intial expectations on ebay almost all my issues in terms of rudeness and misrepresentation to date have been from Australian and US sellers! Anyway, I digress.

I'm not quite ready to name names yet (although I'm starting to feel I owe it to the rest of you). We'll see what he has to say in response to this email:


While tempted to keep it I have to confess I 'm not happy with this transaction. I'm told by a 3rd party I'm entitled to shipping costs if the description is off but I'm keen to avoid an ebay dispute (from what I gather, a long obscure process whereby noone really wins and the logic behind the final decision is never disclosed). So I want to lay the cards on the table and see if we can find a middle ground where we both walk away satisfied.

I am staggered you would suggest I resell it if the fungus returns, foisting the problem onto someone else. To that point I believed you had acted in good faith but that frankly raises questions about your integrity. Don't take that as an attack, you have 100% feedback and I want to believe that it was a momentary lapse but you have to see this from my point of view. Ebay requires trust to function. At the end of the day I don't know you from a bar of soap and I've spent a lot of money on an item that wasn't as described to a seller who isn't exactly bending over backwards to make things right.

While I'm sure you had a lot of interest, we were all bidding on the expectation of a lens that matched the condition described: 'No marks, scratches or visible lens degradation or contamination.'

It did not (it is 1.33x too, not 1.5x - AFAIK doesn't affect the value).

Since I paid fair market value for a lens in good cond (£300 - 500, depending on accessories) I think it's only fair I get a refund for the £44 (by your own investigation, a good price) it cost to restore to the condition I paid for. I think this is a fair request whether I keep it or not. I'd be unhappy but likely would cut my losses if you agreed to this without argument. If you were to also refund 10% of the purchase cost (the risk) I would see that as an act of goodwill and call the matter settled. I believe an £80 total refund would still be in your favour but would be able to walk away satisfied. If you disagree tell me your side. Let's settle amicably.


I hope this demonstrates that I'm a genuine, reasonable guy and willing to come to a mutually satisfactoy arrangement. I tried to present it as an invitation to make good rather than an outright attack. I can see his point of view, if he is in fact genuine and hasn't deliberately done to me what he is suggesting I do to others, then I can see how he might think I'm trying to pull one over on him. If I was selling I would have that concern (although I'd be more concerned about my reputation and seek to make good). My suggestion still gives him a price that would be fair for a lens in good condition and I'm really just looking for him to acknowledge that I didn't get what I was sold. I don't want a dispute and I don't want to return it, lose $130 and have no lens.

I really hope he comes to the party. I dislike like the feeling of being ripped off more than actually being ripped off...
 
I wouldn't take the "resell it" comment too seriously. What you do with the lens in the future is your business.

I think a fair arrangement at this point would be to press the seller to refund the cost of cleaning the lens, but no more. After all, that would put you in exactly the position you expected to be -- a visually perfect and usable lens, and having spent no more than you bargained for in the auction.

Feedback could be tricky, but if he goes for that arrangement, I'd be inclined to leave positive feedback but with a note something like, "lens had undocumented fungus, but seller cooperated to pay for cleaning." It's honest, but still enough to cast a little doubt on the accuracy of his future descriptions.

If the lens had arrived in the state it is now after cleaning, you would have had no doubts about it -- even though, like any lens, it might develop fungus in the future. That's the chance you take buying anything that isn't brand new.

You probably will always have a slightly bad taste in your mouth regarding this seller and transaction, but the bottom line is that you'll get a usable piece of glass out of it which, as you pointed out, is a fairly hard item to find in good condition.

I do hope you have a receipt for the cleaning so you can document it to the seller. Even better if the repair tech added a description of the initial condition of the lens.

If he won't reimburse you for the cleaning, I think I'd still be inclined to keep the lens since you looked so long and hard for one, but negative feedback would certainly be in order then.

- Greg
 
I don't know if this will work because it sorta just popped into my head. But I wonder if you could use UV-C light to kill the fungus if it came back. Any fungus that had grown would still be there, but it wouldn't spread because UV-C light damages DNA. Something to try!
 
Yeah that's the position I'm in and pretty much where I'm coming from and what I intend to do. I want to leave positive feedback, I've never had to leave negative feedback yet and I'm always honest about it. A couple of times I gave neutral but that was after discussion with the seller in both cases they agreed it was a fair call. If he doesn't refund the cleaning costs I don't see how I can avoid it, if he shows some goodwill then I can be comfortable with giving positive feedback. But I didn't mention feedback in my response to him because I don't want it to be blackmail and it's frankly going to be as much the attitude of his reply as what he offers that will decide how I feel about it.

I have photographic evidence of the fungus and can get a statement from the lens guy if need be but I don't want it to that far. I think I will ultimately have to keep it whatever happens in this lose-lose situation. There is a slight difference between a lens that might develop fungus and one that is known to have had fungus but I guess I've had a pretty good run with ebay. I usually only buy bargains so that I won't be disappointed when something like this happens. I don't mind being financially out as much as emotionally let down by the less honest of my fellow humans. I'll just have to give feedback that equates to my satisfaction, I guess.
 
atarijedi said:
I don't know if this will work because it sorta just popped into my head. But I wonder if you could use UV-C light to kill the fungus if it came back. Any fungus that had grown would still be there, but it wouldn't spread because UV-C light damages DNA. Something to try!
Click to expand...

The lens guy is fairly confident his treatment has killed it, I didn't see exactly what they did but they mentioned a UV treatment (seemed rather brief though) and chemical wipes. Fungus removal is one of the standard services they provide but even then it was only the rare combination of circumstances present in this case that makes him think it might be okay. It doesn't have appeared to penetrated the coating at all and he posits that it was very recent and likely getting started around specks of dust rather than anchored into the lens. It was all surface and external. My other fungus lens (an old Nikkor) I'm getting him to clean next week will be more a case of delaying the inevitable because it is internal and has penetrated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top