I have recently been working on purchasing an ultra wide angle zoom lens for FF. To fill this need a couple of years ago on my 7D, I had the EFs 10-22 lens. Unfortunately, while I occasionally want wider than 24 mm, I tended to not like the shots taken with the 10-22. The lens itself was not the problem, it is just something I may not have a good eye for. But, it is something I want to be better at. So I just bought the Rokinon 14 f/2.8 UMC, but the lack of AF and the rather extreme perspective of 14 mm doesn't completely fill my need, which probably is more on the 20-24 mm range.
So I was evaluating the EF 16-35 f/2.8 II, EF 17-40, and Tokina 16-28 f/2.8. In addition to the highest price tag, the EF 16-35 has 82 mm threads. Because of the EF 24-70 II and TSE 24 f/3.5 II, I will eventually move toward 82 mm threads. But when I do it will likely cost an additional $800-900 to get all of the filters I will want (6 stop, 10 stop solid ND, CPL, adapter ring for cokin Z-pro, etc). But I would like f/2.8 for potential nightscapes. So, I was focusing my search on the EF 17-40 f/4 and the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 (no threads) when a special on a couple of Olympic photographers came on. I was watching and they started focusing on the UWA shots that they were taking. I paused the TV on the image of them using their UWA lens to verify what it was.
EF 17-35. Huh? I had never heard of it. But a bit of research showed that it was manufactured from 1996-2001 when it was replaced by the EF 16-35 f/2.8 mk I, which was then replaced by the EF 16-35 f/2.8 mk II in 2007 (which, if that timeline holds, means we are due for a new model). But more interestingly, it is light (545 g-this is intended to be a secondary/specialized lens) and accepts 77 mm threads (so I have the filters). In those ways, it is like the EF 17-40 f/4. But it provides the extra stop of light and in reading comments I could find, there is some love for the EF 17-35 f/2.8 out there, specifically from 20-35 mm. Which is really where I would want. It appears to be notoriously soft in the corners wide open at 17 mm, but the EF 16-35 ii and EF 17-40 aren't that great there either.
So, I check ebay and there are several for sale. I bid on one that was described by a professional photographer as having "flawless optics," "internally, front and rear" with no "scratches, dust or mold." But he had a no return policy. I won this auction.
But why is this thread entitled "lens fungus?" The lens arrived a little over a week ago at my office. I started looking over the lens, and something caught my eye internally. So I looked it over more at home.
Unforunately, it lit up like a Christmas tree
I've spent a good part of the last week arguing with the seller, who refused to take the lens back and issue a refund despite the evidence his representation of the lens was incorrect. He first tried to tell me this was condensation, and then he tried to blame the post office. He even tried to misrepresent my opinions back to me (Jedi mind trick???) and belittle my opinions as something I learned on the "internet." Needless to say, I didn't buy any of the arguments. I sent the photos to a couple of lens repair facilities and had two responses both saying that this was fungus (which was already my suspicion). The cost to clean ranged from $174-$225 plus shipping. But I was warned that due to potential etching of the lens elements (fungus secrets hydrofluoric acid), this may not be repairable. One facility estimated that 30-40 percent of lenses with fungus have etching.
It took awhile, but this had now ended. The process was to file a complaint in the "Resolution Center," wait 4 days for us to try to "work it out," and then "escalate" the case to an ebay representative. Last night the ebay representative found in my favor and I can now return the lens for a full refund. So it is ending well. My faith in ebay as a company is intact. Their process really was easy to follow and very smooth. I am not sure if I will be buying from individual sellers anytime soon. I may want the ability to inspect any lens before buying it in the future.
I still want an UWA zoom. But I am going to wait for a bit before I start looking again.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Dave Throgmartin
