Would you keep this "new" Canon 70-200mm F4 L IS USM ?

P

pmcgsmurf

Messages
230
Name
Pat
Edit My Images
Yes
Managed to get a "new" Canon 70-200mm F4 L IS USM from Dixons for £751.99

1. Seal was broken on box.

2. No Lens Hood in the box.

3. No instruction booklet.
Is one usually included?

4. Date code W making it a 2008. :eek:

The box itself is also filthy and has a strange label on it too.

I doubt Dixons will have a "new" replacement so guess I may lose out on the bargain price if I return it.

Am I doing the right thing returning this?

f4LBox.jpg
[/IMG]

F4LSeal.jpg


f4LBody.jpg


F4LDateCode.jpg


F4LLabel.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'd tell them I wanted a lens hood for it but given the price if it's working alright I think I'd hang onto it.

Chances are it's an ex-display - though the RECALL on the label would concern me a bit - but you've paid the second hand price for it anyway.
 
I'd want the hood for sure. If exchange is an option I'd do it for security but would be happy to have the hood if price was right, date code not a bother as otherwise the condition is fine? (no chipped paint/signs of use)
 
I would be questioning Dixons on the points you have made. Dependant on their answers I would be looking for a refund or a replacement for a brand new lens complete with hood,instructions etc. Good luck
 
Definitely get the hood and instruction manual. Both should be included and if they are not then I'd return it. Lowers the resale value if they are not there.

Neil
 
I looked at that offer. Glad I didn't buy now. Depends on how much you value the difference in price between what you have vs new from elsewhere...
 
Its clearly not the complete package. I would expect them to source the missing parts or offer a partial credit for the difference.

To be honest if I bought it used, I would expect it to be complete and cost less than Dixons 'new' price.


Andy
 
Personally my worry would be the big fat 'recall' sticker. Bargain or not you've still paid a lot of money for the lens and the fact that it has 'recall' on it would be a worry.

It might be something trivial - but it might be something major, sounds quite a risk to me.

Regards

Neil
 
Thanks folks.

No signs of any marks on the lens that I can see.

I'll try them for a "new" replacement or a discount if they can't offer this.
 
pmcgsmurf said:
Managed to get a "new" Canon 70-200mm F4 L IS USM from Dixons for £751.99

1. Seal was broken on box.

2. No Lens Hood in the box.

3. No instruction booklet.
Is one usually included?

4. Date code W making it a 2008. :eek:

The box itself is also filthy and has a strange label on it too.

I doubt Dixons will have a "new" replacement so guess I may lose out on the bargain price if I return it.

Am I doing the right thing returning this?

[/IMG]
Click to expand...

As far as you know, you thought you were buying a new lens which is obviously second hand... It's wrong and I'd return it.. You need the hood and it also should have a case... Pay a little extra for a new one...
 
pmcgsmurf said:
Thanks folks.

No signs of any marks on the lens that I can see.

I'll try them for a "new" replacement or a discount if they can't offer this.
Click to expand...

Hi I got one via currys and bought it in shop, there are still a few in the shops in the north east but all are old lenses a year or more X 05 was oldest, but all unused and with all the bits and only 1 I saw had a trashed box so walked away.
Try for a replacement from a shop, good lens though and great price :)
 
my two penneth, if you bought this lens on the undersatnding it was new and there is no literature to suggest otherwise then I would take it back and insist on a replacement, if they quibble then I would be informing them of a vist to trading standards.

its not just the missing bits, that recall sticker would cause me concern
 
Recall can simply mean that head office recalled all existing stock back into the centre, so as to consolidate it, and then sent it out to a number of clearance stores to get rid... That's very common in retail :)
 
Did you buy it as new, or as seen?

If new, then I would take it back for a properly new one. If as seen, then that's entirely your decision.

It's a good price, but I wouldn't have bought it. I'm sure the lens is fine, but in terms of value, there's the age, the question of the recall sticker, tatty box and no instructions (it's only a tiny leaflet thing) and the hood alone costs £40. All will impact resale value. I would want the hood supplied, and another 50 quid off. But that's just me.

I think Kerso will do you a brand spanker for close to £800...
 
HoppyUK said:
Did you buy it as new, or as seen?

If new, then I would take it back for a properly new one. If as seen, then that's entirely your decision.

It's a good price, but I wouldn't have bought it. I'm sure the lens is fine, but in terms of value, there's the age, the question of the recall sticker, tatty box and no instructions (it's only a tiny leaflet thing) and the hood alone costs £40. All will impact resale value. I would want the hood supplied, and another 50 quid off. But that's just me.

I think Kerso will do you a brand spanker for close to £800...
Click to expand...

they were sold as new and I checked Ian's prices before I bought mine and he was £100 more, like everyone his prices have gone up sadly
 
Is the serial No on the box the same as the lens?
 
If it were me, I would do quick email to Canon and ask if this lens still carries "their" warranty.

I recently bought a refurbished Sigma 150-500 with a three year Sigma warranty.
 
I recently just sold a used one for £675.
I'd take it back and point all this out and see if you can get a discount and take it from there.
 
HoppyUK said:
Did you buy it as new, or as seen?
Click to expand...

Bought as new from Dixons online, nothing indicated the lens would be anything else other than new.

admirable said:
Is the serial No on the box the same as the lens?
Click to expand...

Hadn't thought to check this.
Number on the lens is 300869 which is the same as the last digits on the label on the box.

killwilly said:
If it were me, I would do quick email to Canon and ask if this lens still carries "their" warranty.
Click to expand...

Think I'll do that, thanks.

I've contacted Dixons so will see what they have to say.
 
i saw this offer in dixons briefly last week via camera price buster and was thinking of pulling the trigger only to find out they were all sold out
 
skiwhiz said:
they were sold as new and I checked Ian's prices before I bought mine and he was £100 more, like everyone his prices have gone up sadly
Click to expand...

£100 more than what? You mean Ian (Kerso) was £850 or £900? Be interesting to know where his prices price sit right now, they do vary a lot with the dollar exchange rate.
 
Here is the best bit.

The seal to the packaging should have been damaged by our courier's.
Click to expand...

Nothing much else other than "call this number to arrange collection"
 
I'd have serious thoughts about taking that back. If I'm buying a new lens from a retailer I expect the condition of the entire package to reflect that. I always think if I was giving it as a gift would I take this, and why should I expect less for myself?

They should offer some compensation.
 
pmcgsmurf said:
Here is the best bit.

The seal to the packaging should have been damaged by our courier's.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Ahh... that explains it all. A courier who owns a 70-200F4 IS but missing a hood and instruction book. Clearly the only possible answer....
 
HoppyUK said:
£100 more than what? You mean Ian (Kerso) was £850 or £900? Be interesting to know where his prices price sit right now, they do vary a lot with the dollar exchange rate.
Click to expand...

Ian was £850 as I was going to buy the 70-200 f4 is and 10-22 but both had jumped to where they were close to what I could get in store, in 2 weeks the 2 lenses had gone up by about £90 in total.
 
Just read this post I think some one has bought it and swap lenses as there was faulty. Or bought it to Rob the bits out of it and them take it back to get money back and got some one who did not know what they were doing....

Or its a member of staff who needed a few bits.....

But that's my thoughts
 
chad said:
Just read this post I think some one has bought it and swap lenses as there was faulty. Or bought it to Rob the bits out of it and them take it back to get money back and got some one who did not know what they were doing....

Or its a member of staff who needed a few bits.....

But that's my thoughts
Click to expand...

Surely no one is going to buy a 1k lens to "rob" a £40 lens hood then send it back, lol!!!

And if the staff want the hood they could source one without raping the box to a 70-200.

I do think it's a returned lens, or the lens is an ex display item and was just shoved, sans hood, in the box.

Can Canon do an audit trail on the serial number?
 
Last edited:
Just managed to pick one of these up from Curry's for the same price, it was on display but in mint condition and with all the bits in the box, date code is also W 2008.
 
ziggy©;3726992 said:
If I was buying new I expect it to be new. I don't think the price difference is worth the hassle that could come with it.
Click to expand...

Yea, the OP might as well have bought it from ebay second hand and would have even come with a hood and instructions in most cases for similar price.

To the OP, if you already had £800 to spend on that lens, u might as well return, get a refund and spend a bit more on a brand new one.
 
Just to let u know. my mate also bought this lens from dixons at same price and all he found in the box was the lens hood and instructions!

He was unimpressed with this products auto focus and sharpness! he was VERY impressed with the weight of it! says it weighs less then a can of coke!



















note: this is a joke post hehe :)
 
Carlos68 said:
Just managed to pick one of these up from Curry's for the same price, it was on display but in mint condition and with all the bits in the box, date code is also W 2008.
Click to expand...

For me that is just too old on a "new" product.

ziggy©;3726992 said:
If I was buying new I expect it to be new. I don't think the price difference is worth the hassle that could come with it.
Click to expand...

Agree, a 3 year old lens could have been anywhere and done anything.

jonneymendoza said:
To the OP, if you already had £800 to spend on that lens, u might as well return, get a refund and spend a bit more on a brand new one.
Click to expand...

Going back to Dixons on Monday as that is the earliest they can collect.
I'll give them a few days to see if they can get a "new" one, if not then I'll get a refund.
 
Sales of good act should kick in here as you bought what was advertised as a new lens which obviously is not new. I'ld be having a few choice words.

The price is irrelevant if the shop is advertising the sale of a new product.
 
TheNissanMan said:
Sales of good act should kick in here as you bought what was advertised as a new lens which obviously is not new. I'ld be having a few choice words.

The price is irrelevant if the shop is advertising the sale of a new product.
Click to expand...

:plus1::agree: if it were me I would insist on replacement NEW!! no broken seal and all the bits, if they do not agree trading standards is where i would be going
 
A lot of expensive lenses we buy can often be a few years old (unless of course the lens is a new model).

We have to remember items such as expensive lenses don't fly off the shelves, especially at places like dixons and currys, and as such can sit in stock for years.
 
odd jim said:
A lot of expensive lenses we buy can often be a few years old (unless of course the lens is a new model).

We have to remember items such as expensive lenses don't fly off the shelves, especially at places like dixons and currys, and as such can sit in stock for years.
Click to expand...

That would be crazy. Nobody can afford to have capital tied up like that for more than a few months at most, preferably weeks. They'd go bust in double-quick time. Minimising stock holding is a cornerstone of retailing - if it doesn't turnover fast, it's a special order job.
 
HoppyUK said:
That would be crazy. Nobody can afford to have capital tied up like that for more than a few months at most, preferably weeks. They'd go bust in double-quick time. Minimising stock holding is a cornerstone of retailing - if it doesn't turnover fast, it's a special order job.
Click to expand...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12906017

BBC said:
Dixons Retail shares plunge 20% on profit warning

Shares in Dixons Retail plunged as much as 20% after the electricals retailer said annual profits would be at the bottom of market expectations.

The company, which owns Currys and PC World, said profits for the year to the end of April would be about £85m, compared with forecasts of £85m-£109m.

It added that like-for-like sales were down 7% in the past 11 weeks.

The group said it would focus on cutting costs further and look at exiting the Spanish market
Click to expand...

http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/dixons-pares-losses-after-restructuring

City AM said:
Dixons pares losses after restructuring



ELECTRONICS retailer Dixons narrowed its first half-losses, it said yesterday, after closing smaller stores and replacing them with so-called “big box” units.

The company reported a £7.9m loss in the six months to 30 September, less than the £17.6m loss it made in the same period last year.

Sales growth was more muted in the second quarter, following a short-lived boost from the World Cup. Like-for-like sales rose two per cent in the UK and Ireland, compared to a six per cent hike in the previous three months.

Slower sales of flatscreen TVs – which jumped during the football tournament – were mostly responsible for the slower growth.

Dixons has restructured its business after several quarters of losses. The company has opened new superstores, and has brought the brands Currys and PC World under one management team.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
That would be crazy. Nobody can afford to have capital tied up like that for more than a few months at most, preferably weeks. They'd go bust in double-quick time. Minimising stock holding is a cornerstone of retailing - if it doesn't turnover fast, it's a special order job.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be too sure.

My local currys stocks the Canon 5d mkII and I bet they'd be lucky to sell one a month at the price they're selling them.

The fact is people rarely buy high end gear from the dixons group chain simply because their prices are far too uncompetative.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top