Hi Marnie... Remember that the qualities of a lens are generally subjective. I may find the images from lens X to be perfectly acceptable, but someone else using it for a paying job may decide otherwise. One person's ceiling is another's floor, so to speak.
Avoid describing the lens's image quality and stick to the more mechanical issues where there is a yes or no answer: Is there fungus on the elements? Are aperture blades clean of oil? Is the body damaged in any way? Finally, don't expect a ton of money for it. t On 1/14/03 7:17 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > This seems really stupid, but I've hesitated to sell a Cimko 70-200mm zoom > back on Ebay because I now know it's a "bad" lens. > > Oh, most of the pictures taken with it look okay, not that bad, with no > obvious distortions, until it is zoomed to its maximum focal length, then it > has swirlies. Not terrible swirlies as some pdmler pointed out awhile back, > but swirlies. > > I'd like to get SOME of my money back on the lens. But I keep stumbling around > trying to figure out how to word the ebay ad. > > "Good for the student." > > "Not the best lens in the world, but adequate for the student." > > "This is actually a pretty lousy lens, I won't lie to you, but the glass is > clear and it will work fine for the uninformed, indiscriminating student until > they know better." > > Sigh. > > I am beginning to think that having any ethical sense at all and selling > flawed and/or not-so-hot stuff on ebay may be too much of a moral dilemma to > resolve. > > Doe aka Marnie ;-) >
