Is there any legitimate reason...?

[Luv2Scrap]

I bought a "new" Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 from 17th Street Photo on Amazon last week. I put "new" in quotes because although it was advertised as new, I can't think of any reason why a new Sigma would arrive wearing a Canon back lens cap, it was barely screwed on, and the front lens had more dust particles than I've ever seen on a lens.

Is there any legitimate reason for a new lens to look like this? I think they sent me a used lens. And it wasn't even cleaned up!

 

[SrisonS]

I don't think there should be any reason for a New lens to look like that. But is the back cap an actual Canon one, or does is say "For Canon"??? I have a Sigma lens with the back cap that says "For Canon AF". A normal Canon cap just says Canon with the particular font.

 

[Luv2Scrap]

I don't think there should be any reason for a New lens to look like that. But is the back cap an actual Canon one, or does is say "For Canon"??? I have a Sigma lens with the back cap that says "For Canon AF". A normal Canon cap just says Canon with the particular font.

Thank you, now that you mention it, I have both kinds of back lens caps and none that actually say Sigma, and this one was as you described. I'm still wondering about the excessive lint/dust particles on the front lens. I guess I'm just going to have to decide if I like the lens or not (the jury is still out on that. Need to do a little more testing, but so far it's a bit soft for my liking)

 

[thehowells]

display model perhaps?

 

[Luv2Scrap]

display model perhaps?

I suppose it's possible that it was a display model...

 

[GrillMouster]

You paid for a new lens, not a display model. Return it.