>> On May 14, 2005, at 12:53 AM, Powell Hargrave wrote: >> >>> So I gave the eBay dealer who sold me the Vivitar 28MM f2 with the non >>> functioning diaphragm with oily blades a "Neutral" rating. His >>> description >>> did say "IT IS CLEAR AND SEEMS TO WORK." >>> >>> Now the ***bleepity bleep%%% dip stick retaliates and gives me a neutral >>> rating. >>> >>> Here are some full size images from the lens. (large - 1.5 megs) >>> http://members.shaw.ca/hargravep/Image5.htm >>> >>> It is a bit funky at f2 but useable for some things. Cleans up pretty >>> well >>> by f2.8. Not a great lens but will do as a fastish short normal >>> until- ?? >>> I am watching for news and images of the Sigma 30mm f1.4 >>>
David Oswald wrote: >Did you contact the seller before leaving the feedback, to discuss the >problem? Yes. Two emails. Suggested he examine lenses more carefully. No reply. >One time I bought a lens that turned out to have fungus. The >seller claimed to not have realized there was fungus, but upon being >confronted with the issue offered to take the item back. He even >covered shipping. > >If he hadn't agreed to take it back (it had been listed as clean and in >excellent condition) I would have left a negative feedback. Why screw >around with a neutral? Neutral is meaningless. Either you're happy >with the transaction, or you're mad about it. Well I'm still happy with the deal. $16.00 and the lens is fine now. The seller doesn't realize he is lucky that I like fixing things or it would be on its way back. >Anyway, what happened when you contacted the seller to discuss the >problem? Was he, at that point, unresponsive? In that case, it sounds >like he deserved a negative. If he wasn't contacted, and wasn't given >an opportunity to remedy the situation, feedback of any kind was posted >prematurely, imho. >
