Ordered used lens, seller admits to dust on internal side of outer glass

[BMW2006]

Hello all, need some quick advice, I used to date a girl who was into photography and would let me use her old equipment. (rebel xt, 50mm prime) When we separated I of course returned all the stuff but after seeing what I could capture with that equipment (I even entered one in a photo contest here) I quickly caught the photography bug. I have recently purchased a t2i and ordered the 50m and also ordered a "like new" Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens. While everyone talks about L quality lenses, it just isn't in the budget right now and this lens gets good reviews for being an all around decent performer for the hobbyist while of course not being at the L level of quality.

Anyway, I ordered one though amazon and shortly received an e-mail from the seller. They admit to there being dust on the inside of the outside lens and have offered the following options.

1. Reduction of the price for a professional lens cleaning (service they claim is $20 @ cord camera)

2. full refund.

I'm immediately inclined to go for option 2. I just don't know about lenses enough to know what dust on the inside means, but it seems like that is an indicator the outside has been compromised in some way, and even if I accept this reduction in price I will pay for it over and over with repeated cleanings and/or degradation in image quality.

However since I am so new to the game I am just curious to know if this is normal for lenses that are somewhat frequently used, then stored for a period of time. Which may be the case for this one.

I'm eager to get the lens because I'm still using the kit lens which is barely fit to wipe my ass with, but also don't want to waste the money, this lens sells new for only $100 more that I'm paying for it. I feel that just backing out and buying new may be the best way to go. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks!

-BMW2006

[bosstones]

For $100 more, I'd go new w/ warranty but that's just me. Don't let your eagerness for the lens get to you, though.

[khaye1]

Originally Posted by bosstones

For $100 more, I'd go new w/ warranty but that's just me. Don't let your eagerness for the lens get to you, though.

+1...why do you want to inherit another person's problem. go for option 2

[UdubBadger]

+1

Option 2 for sure. You gotta pay to play (at least the right way). Worth the warranty for an extra $100 or so.

[BMW2006]

Thanks guys, I backed out. I was already leaning that way but no one came forward to say they have had a similar problem with the lens (or any zoom for that matter) I'm already over budget, but you are right, the $100 jump for a brand new one with warranty is worth it.

-BMW2006

[UdubBadger]

if you are gonna buy used I'd do it from here

www.fredmiranda.com

[oneintheory]

honestly, i'd skip that lens entirely. it's just not a fantastic piece of glass. if you're gonna buy used, scout out a little bit. you could maybe pick up a better walkaround lens in the same price range. you may be able to find a 17-40 for a decent price. not as versatile, but i had absolutely no use for the 28-135. and non-fixed maximum aperture becomes frustrating fast.

[ichiban]

+1 on the 17-40. great L lens on the cheap. And dust inside doesn't affect image quality at all.