Canon refurbished lens looks used

[scorpionv]

I bought a refurbished RF lens from canon online. It looks like more of a used lens than a refurbished one. I can return it but need to pay for shipping both ways! This being the case how can we trust Canon when they say refurbished? There is no option to see first and then buy? Have anyone been in this situation?

 

 

 

 

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

This is a hard for me to answer.  I've purchased many refurb products from Canon.  Several lenses, a flash, and extenders.  Every item has been absolutely perfect.  Free from any marks, blemishes or wear.    

If you aren't happy, I'd call Canon and convey your concerns.  They can't help if you don't let them know.

[scorpionv]

I already did. They can’t replace it for some reason and can only return. I need to pay the shipping. They may also deduct their shipping charges from the refund as well!

[Tronhard]

Hi and welcome to the forum:
I have had occasion to look at the refurbished lens and body sites from time to time.  Reading the small print, the lenses may be in a range of conditions from unused but box open (or even closed), to used.  However, the term refurbished means that the lens is fully operational, not completely pristine necessarily.  For that reason I have seen the same model lens sold for a range of prices that reflect the condition of the lens, but they all function correctly.
So, the question is, does the lens operate properly?  If so, it is within the parameters of a refurbished lens, especially if the price (relative to other similar lenses) was cheaper, thus reflecting the cosmetic condition.

[scorpionv]

I understand, but then how does it differ from used/pre-owned? Canon says “Rigorous function and cosmetic inspections are performed by trained Canon technicians so that each refurbished product meets operational specifications”. I don’t think they did the same on the lens I received.

[Tronhard]

Some of these lenses are used and pre-owned as the text says.  The key to the statement is the phrase "operational specifications", so a lens does not have to look new if they price it at a lower point, but it HAS to WORK like a new unit.   So, does the lens functional correctly - if not you can return it under warranty within the specified period.

[scorpionv]

I think I already made my point clear. You are still leaning towards Canon, not sure why 😀. I wouldn’t have bought that lens for that price if I had seen the picture of the same (or at least a rating of it’s condition) before buying. Now I have to spend considerable amount of money from my pocket just to return it or I should keep it. In either case I am at loss!

[Tronhard]

Please know I am not unsympathetic to your situation and I understand that you are frustrated, and rightly so, as the condition you indicate is surprising, but I am not sure what you can hope to achieve by posting a complaint on this site.  With the absolute best will in the world, we are not Canon support, nor are we the agency for returns or refunds.  To truly get a resolution, you need to engage with Canon staff and we do not work for Canon.

The people here are experienced photographers who try to assist users with advice on technical issues or selections of gear appropriate to their needs.  Nor is it a case of engaging with Canon fan-boys, many of us shoot multiple brands.  I also shoot Fuji, Nikon, Olympus and Sony and own their gear.  

[Tintype_18]

Deducting shipping from the refund is standard. It's rare for a company to cover one's return shipping.

[scorpionv]

Well, almost all online retailers does. Moreover, if you go through the pictures I posted you can clearly see Canon didn’t honour what they mentioned about rigorous checks on cosmetics. I am not at fault here. Given that Canon doesn’t show the pictures of actual refurbished item they ship, we don’t expect such defects (even though not major) on the same.