Does Warranty cover lens haze(?)

[yeekhai]

Good morning to all,

i bought a Tokina lens (manual focus) 17mm f3.5 in July 2012 with 6 months warranty.

recently when i was using my digital camera with this lens, some fog / haze (?) seems quite noticeable in the viewfinder which is difficult to see when using my old nikon FM & EM.

my questions :

(1) is the warranty applicable to lens haze?
(2) is the shop or buyer 's responsibility to check used lens purchased from the shop?

thanks in advance

 

[Octarine]

Check again, is the haze still there? Maybe it was condensation after bringing out the lens from cooler aircon room to humid outside. You can also use a torchlight to check for haze, it will be obvious.
1) If the haze is still there (and not caused by condensation) it is covered by warranty as it obviously is a manufacturing fault.
2) Both. No finger pointing here. With the new lemon law the buyer's responsibility is even more pronounced: check before complain.

 

[yeekhai]

Check again, is the haze still there? Maybe it was condensation after bringing out the lens from cooler aircon room to humid outside. You can also use a torchlight to check for haze, it will be obvious.
1) If the haze is still there (and not caused by condensation) it is covered by warranty as it obviously is a manufacturing fault.
2) Both. No finger pointing here. With the new lemon law the buyer's responsibility is even more pronounced: check before complain.

the haze is still there. i only realised the problem when mounted on my DSLR.

(1) this is an old lens, i dont know how old is the lens, but likely 30 to 40 years ? so only warranty is from the 2nd hand shop

(2) dont understand this part. what is the " lemon law " referring to? to me the responsibilty to check the items whether is in order or not is definitely beyond most of us. eg : electronic / car

thanks

 

[one eye jack]

the haze is still there. i only realised the problem when mounted on my DSLR.

(1) this is an old lens, i dont know how old is the lens, but likely 30 to 40 years ? so only warranty is from the 2nd hand shop

(2) dont understand this part. what is the " lemon law " referring to? to me the responsibilty to check the items whether is in order or not is definitely beyond most of us. eg : electronic / car

thanks

You would have a stronger position if you had check the lens before paying.Surely it is within your capability to see
whether the lens has fungus or haze.Just point it to a light source with aperture full open.

When a lens is 30/40 years old granted a wide angle lens when looked from the front,it's hard to tell because the lens objective makes image small nevertheless it's possible to see defects.One possible defect can be if a compound lens,
one that is made from two lenses glued together with balsam,a clear liquid has detoriated or separated.

Anyhow you have 6 months warranty so take it back to the shop and see what the seller can do for you.If it's fungus he can clean it for you or if it's the worst senario he might refund or offer an equivalent product.That is if you can prove the defect was there before purchasing or leaving the shop.The lemon law protects both seller and buyer but if there really is haze (it does not form overnight) then you have bought a lemon.Of course seller can argue that lens was free from defect before leaving shop.So it's a bit of a dingdong. In this case you did not practice due deligence but go back to the shop anyway as you may have a case.

Edit: As I understand it,consumer law means a seller must have a product that is fit for use or consumption.In this case,is it fit for use?

 

[yeekhai]

You would have a stronger position if you had check the lens before paying.Surely it is within your capability to see
whether the lens has fungus or haze.Just point it to a light source with aperture full open.

When a lens is 30/40 years old granted a wide angle lens when looked from the front,it's hard to tell because the lens objective makes image small nevertheless it's possible to see defects.One possible defect can be if a compound lens,
one that is made from two lenses glued together with balsam,a clear liquid has detoriated or separated.

Anyhow you have 6 months warranty so take it back to the shop and see what the seller can do for you.If it's fungus he can clean it for you or if it's the worst senario he might refund or offer an equivalent product.That is if you can prove the defect was there before purchasing or leaving the shop.The lemon law protects both seller and buyer but if there really is haze (it does not form overnight) then you have bought a lemon.Of course seller can argue that lens was free from defect before leaving shop.So it's a bit of a dingdong. In this case you did not practice due deligence but go back to the shop anyway as you may have a case.

Edit: As I understand it,consumer law means a seller must have a product that is fit for use or consumption.In this case,is it fit for use?

thanks, learnt something new

from wiki and CNA, seems like we can return the goods, and the seller needs to prove the defect is not there in the 1st place (?)

anyway i have talked to the shop and they will check and get back to me. the lemon law starts from 1 Sept 2012 by the way

thanks

 

[one eye jack]

thanks, learnt something new

from wiki and CNA, seems like we can return the goods, and the seller needs to prove the defect is not there in the 1st place (?)

anyway i have talked to the shop and they will check and get back to me. the lemon law starts from 1 Sept 2012 by the way

thanks

Wiki and CNA refer to american or eu law.This is Singapore but the principle is similar.Yes lemon law officially kicks in
1st. september 2012 but you bought lens in july 2012.Seller not be obligated to follow/honour lemon law.If seller values customer and wants to stay in business he will find an equitable solution for you.Good luck.

Regardless of proof ,the point is given the situation what is the logical conclusion.Is the product fit to use?

 

[Rashkae]

Also, if it's a 30 or 40 year old lens and you bought it from a second-hand shop, then what you could legally claim as "expectations" is weaker.

 

[yeekhai]

Wiki and CNA refer to american or eu law.This is Singapore but the principle is similar.Yes lemon law officially kicks in
1st. september 2012 but you bought lens in july 2012.Seller not be obligated to follow/honour lemon law.If seller values customer and wants to stay in business he will find an equitable solution for you.Good luck.

Regardless of proof ,the point is given the situation what is the logical conclusion.Is the product fit to use?

Also, if it's a 30 or 40 year old lens and you bought it from a second-hand shop, then what you could legally claim as "expectations" is weaker.

for buying old items, i do expect some flaws here and there. i even bought a nikon FM with dent, 50f1.2 with nicks, 28f2 with focusing ring issue, all these flaws are brought to my attention.

but frankly speaking, i do have problem detecting the haze using the film camera and my inexperience of identifying haze. i was telling the shop the viewfinder seems dimmer which i thought was due to the f3.5.


back to my question :

(1) is the warranty applicable to lens haze?
(2) is the shop or buyer 's responsibility to check used lens purchased from the shop?

my own opinion for the above 2 questions :
(1) warranty is appicable unless being told about the defects. Hiding facts is like trying to cheat (this may be a bit far fetched )
(2) shop's responsibility to sell a non-defective goods. not everyone is competent or having a good and competent friend to help checking

just trying to be fair, nothing personal

 

[Rashkae]

back to my question :

(1) is the warranty applicable to lens haze?
(2) is the shop or buyer 's responsibility to check used lens purchased from the shop?

my own opinion for the above 2 questions :
(1) warranty is appicable unless being told about the defects. Hiding facts is like trying to cheat (this may be a bit far fetched )
(2) shop's responsibility to sell a non-defective goods. not everyone is competent or having a good and competent friend to help checking

just trying to be fair, nothing personal

1. Depends on the shop. Canvassing for opinions on CS would be about as useful as asking the neighborhood cat to wake up. You need to discuss this with the shop, as obviously the warranty is a shop-only warranty and not a manufacturer warranty where you would have more rights.
2. It's the buyer's job to check (especially for old and second-hand items!!!!!), which is why you sign a "received goods in working order" condition on most receipts. It's up to the shop as to how to honor defective goods - either they swap for you on the spot (usually within 2 weeks of purchase, for brand new items as the shop can RMA to the manufacturer) or refer you to the service centre. As for haze on a 30+ year old lens - calling that "defective" would not hold water for me. You want something free of defects, you get brand new. If you buy old items, you need to know what you are doing and looking for.

 

[Octarine]

the haze is still there. i only realised the problem when mounted on my DSLR.
(1) this is an old lens, i dont know how old is the lens, but likely 30 to 40 years ? so only warranty is from the 2nd hand shop
(2) dont understand this part. what is the " lemon law " referring to? to me the responsibilty to check the items whether is in order or not is definitely beyond most of us. eg : electronic / car

1) Go back to the shop and clarify with them. Haze is nothing that comes over night. Chances are it was there already when you got the lens. The warranty promise has to be kept.
2) Whether the lemon law is applicable or not (with the details given it seems it's not valid here), beside the seller / sales man every buyer still has the responsibility to check whether the item fits the description and is able to fulfill the intended job / purpose. Of course that excludes any disassembling, but the normal check by viewing and checking of functions (e.g. AF function on AF lenses) is something that can be expected from a buyer. That's why I see it as responsibility of both to verify that the item is free of defects and damages at the moment of handover. Sure, certain functions cannot be checked on the spot (e.g. with cars), that's where warranty (and lemon law) comes in.
We even have a sticky thread here to help people who want to get 2nd hand equipment. You are member since Feb 2009.

 

[yeekhai]

1. Depends on the shop. Canvassing for opinions on CS would be about as useful as asking the neighborhood cat to wake up. You need to discuss this with the shop, as obviously the warranty is a shop-only warranty and not a manufacturer warranty where you would have more rights.
2. It's the buyer's job to check (especially for old and second-hand items!!!!!), which is why you sign a "received goods in working order" condition on most receipts. It's up to the shop as to how to honor defective goods - either they swap for you on the spot (usually within 2 weeks of purchase, for brand new items as the shop can RMA to the manufacturer) or refer you to the service centre. As for haze on a 30+ year old lens - calling that "defective" would not hold water for me. You want something free of defects, you get brand new. If you buy old items, you need to know what you are doing and looking for.

thanks for your replies, i m here just to seek your opinions as well as to raise awareness on the warranty issue of wnd hand items

your reply for 2 "it's the buyer's job to check" will put many people off from buying 2nd hand items as not many are good at all these checking. i dont quite agree with this, however i will ask specifically in future whether the lens has haze or fungus even i cant detect them just in case and be kiasu

thanks

 

[Rashkae]

thanks for your replies, i m here just to seek your opinions as well as to raise awareness on the warranty issue of wnd hand items

your reply for 2 "it's the buyer's job to check" will put many people off from buying 2nd hand items as not many are good at all these checking. i dont quite agree with this, however i will ask specifically in future whether the lens has haze or fungus even i cant detect them just in case and be kiasu

thanks

Aaaand that's why we already have about 200 "advice on buying second hand lens" threads and even a sticky on it already.

 

[yeekhai]

1) Go back to the shop and clarify with them. Haze is nothing that comes over night. Chances are it was there already when you got the lens. The warranty promise has to be kept.
2) Whether the lemon law is applicable or not (with the details given it seems it's not valid here), beside the seller / sales man every buyer still has the responsibility to check whether the item fits the description and is able to fulfill the intended job / purpose. Of course that excludes any disassembling, but the normal check by viewing and checking of functions (e.g. AF function on AF lenses) is something that can be expected from a buyer. That's why I see it as responsibility of both to verify that the item is free of defects and damages at the moment of handover. Sure, certain functions cannot be checked on the spot (e.g. with cars), that's where warranty (and lemon law) comes in.
We even have a sticky thread here to help people who want to get 2nd hand equipment. You are member since Feb 2009.

i did read the sticky (long ago). but this haze thing is difficult to detect using my nikon FM, dimmer than normal which i thought was due to f3.5 aperture. i did notice the lens sometimes has light looks like thru "barley water" which i thought was veiling glare.

thanks for your replies.

 

[La Fontaine]

I noticed that TS seems to say that he noticed or rather saw the haze in his dSLR. But he didn't mentioned seeing it in real film negative, or slides or in print. Or in the digital picture.

Wonder how would the haze appear - as a patch of low-contrast area? or a patch of low-contrast plus less sharp area? And how noticeable is that patch or how large is that patch or several patches?

And could we see any examples, or rather can TS post a picture here for us to see how bad the haze is, how extensive it is so that we all can learn something from this.

TS seems to have experience playing with used gear. So, he should know about taking some risk in getting used gear. At times, it is a matter of luck, to get a good buy or a not-so-good deal.