that's still better than no such privilege at all. whch seems to be the case with almost all ebay listings. and there are *very few* people who would agree to refund the whole payment (bid + s/h).
otoh, if an item is clearly misrepresented (mis-advertised), you can (in a long and painful process) get most of your money back from ebay, without seller's cooperation at all. i know, i did once, a few year ago. but, imo, the price is (way) too high, no matter what. perhaps the buyer just wanted the lens that much :) best, mishka On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 01:05:26 -0500, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't know about the K versions but the 15mm SMCTs have all been > selling for > over a $1000 lately on ebay. One thing I do not like on this listing is > the > seller expects you to pay shipping and insurance costs for the privilige > of > returning his mis-adverstised items. That's absurd if the error is gross > and on > the part of the seller. Wheres the incentive for him to list it > correctly if > the buyer pays the price for his mistakes? > JCO > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 12:54 AM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?) > > AL version? What's that? I didn't think the K15/3.5 was all that rare > to warrant so high a price as this one sold for. Is this a reasonable > price for a K15/3.5? Wasn't there a SMC Tak 15/3.5 as well? I'd like > to learn more about the various iterations of this lens. Anybody an > expert on these puppies? > > Shel > > > [Original Message] > > From: Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Dunno, but I wonder who got this one: > > > > http://tinyurl.com/547s5 > > > > I wonder if someone determined this was the AL version? According to > > Boz/Dario, only 100 were made. > >
