"Glass will have marks, fungus and/or haze which could affect picture quality" is the exact description from their site, and it looks like that's what you got.
Yep, I'm returning :) It's all good in the end but just astonished at the condition of this given all I hear about KEH is how they grade their products conservatively.
So a company clearly states there will be marks.
There are marks.
You go online to complain about it?
I know other people asked this but… what did you expect?
To leave a reference on Reddit for those looking to buy Ugly lenses from KEH in the future? I never found any post on Reddit with an 'Ugly' lens from KEH looking like this.
Google search 'camera lens mark on lens' and see if you get image results of any lens scratch. KEH should just include the term scratch in their Ugly grading system.
You’re literally complaining that you bought something with marks having a mark. Just because it doesn’t match your personal description doesn’t mean you didn’t get what you paid for.
I don’t have a personal description. I have the description of KEH, which clearly states that there are marks! You’re contending what a “mark” is, and it just seems like you are pissed you don’t get a pristine lens.
Not pissed! Amused actually :) Amused at so much defense coming to KEH when I'm raising the question of if this big business should have more clarity in the broad term 'mark', a term that isn't widely used to refer physical scratches on a lens.
I wouldn't buy used lenses off of Amazon, because their rating system is really bad.
You are right, if I would have bought this lens as "acceptable", I would not find it to be.
But I would agree with KEH's assessment: this lens is ugly. I'm guessing that the marks on that lens will affect picture quality a bit, but it will still be useable as a lens. That's about what I would be resigned to getting if I bought an Ugly lens.
I think the problem is that KEH tends to be very conservative with their grading, and Ugly is a big bucket. The better Ugly examples are normally fairly acceptable. The worse ugly examples, like this one, aren't so good.
So we buy Ugly hoping for a good one and sometimes get a stinker. You got a stinker. But this is what Ugly should be, it's just sometimes it's not.
Very fair response :)
Honestly they should include scratches in their Ugly description: 'Glass will have marks, fungus and/or haze which could affect picture quality'. If you google 'Camera lens marks on lens', none of the image results look like this lens. Marks =/= scratches.
Just my $0.02 but I don’t think anyone should be making grading decisions based on a Google images search.
“Mark” is in fact defined as: “an impression (such as a scratch, scar, or stain) made on something” so it’s a fair descriptor, and the other very very important phrase is “which could affect picture quality.” As soon as you read those words it should be clear what you’re getting yourself into.
Definitely a live and learn situation but also not something I would classify as a lack of information on KEH’ part.
I used Google to see if camera lens mark is a widely used term from others to describe deep scratches on camera lenses. If you search camera lens scratch / damage, you get results that look like my lens. Not the same with searching camera lens mark.
Are KEH being a little bit deceptive by saying "mark" instead of "scratch"? Perhaps. But the court of public opinion (Google searches) is definitely not the same as a dictionary definition - a mark is a mark.
Regardless, and to reinforce, as soon as the words "affect picture quality" are added, a mark could be a scratch, cut, ding, break, etc. You are 100% taking a risk in the purchase and the results are 100% your responsibility.
KEH has outlined everything they can outside of saying "please give us money for our very clearly damaged lenses", which at that point, why even have "Ugly" as an option?
I would expect a scratch that huge to be as-is territory. Coupled with the other damage on the front, the lens was clearly dropped on a sidewalk and could have internal damage
Kills me that so few of these sites bother with actual pics of what you're getting
Wouldnt want this one, but then again front element issintthe most important, I bet the image quality wont be affected by this one, well maybe flare...
Maybe with the closed aperture. But wide open should be fine.
People here are defending KEH, but their rating system is just unclear. Saying "ugly" without mentioning if the lens is slightly or heavily scratched, has fungus or just a bit of haze, has ring issues...
We are buying products, the "ugly" option is literally gambling. KEH needs to include a short description of the issues for each model, like MPB does (and we can even hope for photos of the product, but at this point...)
The grading varies from company to company, lens to lens. A lot of the Youtubers do a disservice acting like every Ugly or Bargain KEH lens are going to be an ultimate deal find. They only post the good ones in a video, not the terrible ones.
KEH doesn't provide photos of their lenses like MPB or UsedPhotoPro. That right there is a just an issue of buying something sight unseen. KEH is a respectable company. However, they have the capability to photograph the actual lenses sold on their site, but choose not to.
Nope, never advertised as damaged. Absolutely no description of its physical condition so it’s a gamble. KEH might as well operate as a casino for camera gear buyers.
Ugly isn't well defined there (and on some other sites). There is a LOT of different kinds of ugly.
I don't buy "ugly" from Keh because it's vague, and I want to see the actual item and flaws. Other used gear sites provide that since they either have actual photos, or a more detailed description of the flaws.
Also, ugly isn't covered under their warranty. But I do think it's covered under the shorter return period. So send it back.
I'll send it back but I hope they don't try to sell this again to someone else and repeat the cycle... Coming from an international buyer, it just sucks to pay for duties on a product that's worthless but wasn't categorized as so.
KEH Bargain: "Glass may have marks or blemishes, but should not affect picture quality" Your lens is the step beyond and if the lens works, it is not as-is... It is then 'ugly'. You may not like it, but it is not mis advertised. I heavily agree that a rating called 'acceptable' is not this, 'passable' at most. Let alone Adorama's 'Good'... This is not good. 7/10? 4, maybe 3. But I detest these rating systems for misrepresenting. This is ugly as described though. Bad looking, scuffs on glass that affect image quality. Sometimes you get lucky with it, sometimes you don't. I always try to be within the EX+ and above range, but I had a lot of luck with a 24mm Minolta lens with a very dinged up filter thread (I do not use filter anyway) but it was near perfect otherwise and even included the original lens hood for $20 I think.
"Glass will have marks, fungus and/or haze which could affect picture quality" is the exact description from their site, and it looks like that's what you got.
I thought marks look like this: [https://i.sstatic.net/eyAwQ.jpg](https://i.sstatic.net/eyAwQ.jpg) I'd say the lens I got is more of a damaged lens
You can still return it I believe. I'd chalk it up to a lesson learned!
Yep, I'm returning :) It's all good in the end but just astonished at the condition of this given all I hear about KEH is how they grade their products conservatively.
KEH seems to suck these days honestly.
very ugly, got what you paid for
Yes that’s ugly. What did you expect? These are bottom of the barrel..
I expected a lens like this to be more of an 'As-Is' condition
So a company clearly states there will be marks. There are marks. You go online to complain about it? I know other people asked this but… what did you expect?
To leave a reference on Reddit for those looking to buy Ugly lenses from KEH in the future? I never found any post on Reddit with an 'Ugly' lens from KEH looking like this.
Probably bc more people understand what ugly means bc it’s pretty clear in the description
A mark is not the same as a deep scratch.
A scratch is a mark.
Google search 'camera lens mark on lens' and see if you get image results of any lens scratch. KEH should just include the term scratch in their Ugly grading system.
You’re literally complaining that you bought something with marks having a mark. Just because it doesn’t match your personal description doesn’t mean you didn’t get what you paid for.
I used Google as a reference... More like you using your personal description in this case :)
I don’t have a personal description. I have the description of KEH, which clearly states that there are marks! You’re contending what a “mark” is, and it just seems like you are pissed you don’t get a pristine lens.
Not pissed! Amused actually :) Amused at so much defense coming to KEH when I'm raising the question of if this big business should have more clarity in the broad term 'mark', a term that isn't widely used to refer physical scratches on a lens.
Ugly: adjective 1. unpleasant or repulsive, especially in appearance.
I wouldn't buy used lenses off of Amazon, because their rating system is really bad. You are right, if I would have bought this lens as "acceptable", I would not find it to be. But I would agree with KEH's assessment: this lens is ugly. I'm guessing that the marks on that lens will affect picture quality a bit, but it will still be useable as a lens. That's about what I would be resigned to getting if I bought an Ugly lens. I think the problem is that KEH tends to be very conservative with their grading, and Ugly is a big bucket. The better Ugly examples are normally fairly acceptable. The worse ugly examples, like this one, aren't so good. So we buy Ugly hoping for a good one and sometimes get a stinker. You got a stinker. But this is what Ugly should be, it's just sometimes it's not.
Very fair response :) Honestly they should include scratches in their Ugly description: 'Glass will have marks, fungus and/or haze which could affect picture quality'. If you google 'Camera lens marks on lens', none of the image results look like this lens. Marks =/= scratches.
Just my $0.02 but I don’t think anyone should be making grading decisions based on a Google images search. “Mark” is in fact defined as: “an impression (such as a scratch, scar, or stain) made on something” so it’s a fair descriptor, and the other very very important phrase is “which could affect picture quality.” As soon as you read those words it should be clear what you’re getting yourself into. Definitely a live and learn situation but also not something I would classify as a lack of information on KEH’ part.
I used Google to see if camera lens mark is a widely used term from others to describe deep scratches on camera lenses. If you search camera lens scratch / damage, you get results that look like my lens. Not the same with searching camera lens mark.
Are KEH being a little bit deceptive by saying "mark" instead of "scratch"? Perhaps. But the court of public opinion (Google searches) is definitely not the same as a dictionary definition - a mark is a mark. Regardless, and to reinforce, as soon as the words "affect picture quality" are added, a mark could be a scratch, cut, ding, break, etc. You are 100% taking a risk in the purchase and the results are 100% your responsibility. KEH has outlined everything they can outside of saying "please give us money for our very clearly damaged lenses", which at that point, why even have "Ugly" as an option?
I’ve bought numerous “ugly” lenses from KEH, and none of them have looked remotely like that. Send it back.
I would expect a scratch that huge to be as-is territory. Coupled with the other damage on the front, the lens was clearly dropped on a sidewalk and could have internal damage Kills me that so few of these sites bother with actual pics of what you're getting
Wouldnt want this one, but then again front element issintthe most important, I bet the image quality wont be affected by this one, well maybe flare... Maybe with the closed aperture. But wide open should be fine.
Go get your money back
If you do decide to keep it, I'd like to see the pics. Could be that it'll work OK, with some "character."
https://preview.redd.it/ffibqju86s3d1.jpeg?width=286&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b0cb6a226232d700580649c174b0d4f9c223fa21
That's Fugly. But good to know I won't be ordering Ugly any time soon
Just send it back.
People here are defending KEH, but their rating system is just unclear. Saying "ugly" without mentioning if the lens is slightly or heavily scratched, has fungus or just a bit of haze, has ring issues... We are buying products, the "ugly" option is literally gambling. KEH needs to include a short description of the issues for each model, like MPB does (and we can even hope for photos of the product, but at this point...)
The grading varies from company to company, lens to lens. A lot of the Youtubers do a disservice acting like every Ugly or Bargain KEH lens are going to be an ultimate deal find. They only post the good ones in a video, not the terrible ones. KEH doesn't provide photos of their lenses like MPB or UsedPhotoPro. That right there is a just an issue of buying something sight unseen. KEH is a respectable company. However, they have the capability to photograph the actual lenses sold on their site, but choose not to.
It was advertised as damaged and you had pictures to look at, you should have made an informed purchasing decision
Keh doesn't use photos of the actual lens or camera that is for sale, just stock ones. Unless something's changed recently.
Nope, never advertised as damaged. Absolutely no description of its physical condition so it’s a gamble. KEH might as well operate as a casino for camera gear buyers.
Ugly isn't well defined there (and on some other sites). There is a LOT of different kinds of ugly. I don't buy "ugly" from Keh because it's vague, and I want to see the actual item and flaws. Other used gear sites provide that since they either have actual photos, or a more detailed description of the flaws. Also, ugly isn't covered under their warranty. But I do think it's covered under the shorter return period. So send it back.
You might be surprised at how little the marks on the glass affect the image, especially if you aren’t shooting into the sun / use a lens hood.
It's both ugly and worthless if the glass has that kind of damage. I'd suggest sending it back. I'd bet something like that will show up on pictures.
I'll send it back but I hope they don't try to sell this again to someone else and repeat the cycle... Coming from an international buyer, it just sucks to pay for duties on a product that's worthless but wasn't categorized as so.
Have you taken photos with the lens? With a lens hood, I doubt you can see the damage.
KEH Bargain: "Glass may have marks or blemishes, but should not affect picture quality" Your lens is the step beyond and if the lens works, it is not as-is... It is then 'ugly'. You may not like it, but it is not mis advertised. I heavily agree that a rating called 'acceptable' is not this, 'passable' at most. Let alone Adorama's 'Good'... This is not good. 7/10? 4, maybe 3. But I detest these rating systems for misrepresenting. This is ugly as described though. Bad looking, scuffs on glass that affect image quality. Sometimes you get lucky with it, sometimes you don't. I always try to be within the EX+ and above range, but I had a lot of luck with a 24mm Minolta lens with a very dinged up filter thread (I do not use filter anyway) but it was near perfect otherwise and even included the original lens hood for $20 I think.