Hi, Marnie, There is so much hyperbole in some eBay descriptions, I think sticking with the mechanical facts, and not talking about performance at all is perfectly acceptable.
I've seen so many auctions for lenses that are likely dogs, where the vendor says, "Don't be dissuaded by the fact that this is 'only' an Albinar, it's colour rendition and sharpness is better than my Leica lenses, I'm only selling it because I'm getting into digital, etc, etc." You bought the lens, and I doubt that the vendor felt guilty for selling it to you. You likely won't get what you paid for it anyway. Besides, many buyers won't be as critical as you. As long as it takes pitchers, they'll be happy. Go for it! Just don't be mis-leading. cheers, frank [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 ;-) -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
