I purchased a used lens from a top equipment rental company.  The description of the condition of the lens was as follows:GlassFront element Numerous tiny coating scratches, a few might be light glass scratches; no effect on images However, when I inspected the lens, it looks like the front element has impact damage and the glass has a half moon break.  See Pictures below.This lens is a Sigma 50-500 f/4.5-6.3 DG HSM APO OS Nikon for which I paid $850.00.Would you keep this lens?  It is not warranted, but I do have a 3 day return policy.ThanksAl

Al Giordano wrote:I purchased a used lens from a top equipment rental company.  The description of the condition of the lens was as follows:GlassFront element Numerous tiny coating scratches, a few might be light glass scratches; no effect on images However, when I inspected the lens, it looks like the front element has impact damage and the glass has a half moon break.  See Pictures below.This lens is a Sigma 50-500 f/4.5-6.3 DG HSM APO OS Nikon for which I paid $850.00.Would you keep this lens?  It is not warranted, but I do have a 3 day return policy.ThanksAlNo, I wouldn't keep it.  Send it back, you really don't know the extent of the damge.  Your $850 could be better spent.John

Absolutely not.

No.  If that is impact damage, who knows what else will take a dump.

Al Giordano wrote:I purchased a used lens from a top equipment rental company.  The description of the condition of the lens was as follows:GlassFront element Numerous tiny coating scratches, a few might be light glass scratches; no effect on images However, when I inspected the lens, it looks like the front element has impact damage and the glass has a half moon break.  See Pictures below.This lens is a Sigma 50-500 f/4.5-6.3 DG HSM APO OS Nikon for which I paid $850.00.Would you keep this lens?  It is not warranted, but I do have a 3 day return policy.ThanksAlI agree with the rest of the responders.  Return it and look for another used one.  I bought one of the older versions without OS, and it is in Mint condition for $800.00.  I only use it for BIF, so never use OS anyhow since shutter speed is kept high.  Not a scratch anywhere.  I lock it at 500mm and don't zoom as it can become a dust vacuum.  Dave

Return it ASAP

billinvegas wrote:Return it ASAPThanks for all the great advice everyone.  I am going to return it today and see if I can get a suitable replacement.  I will say this thing is a monster...much heavier than my 300mm F/4

As others have mentioned, no way.  Why should you be stuck with a damaged lens?  And let's say in one or two years time you go to sell it on Ebay, for example.  You will need to disclose the crack in the front element, and you will no doubt be forced to sell it at a significant loss.  I've seen people list lenses with optical imperfections near the outer edge of the front element, and they always say "Won't affect IQ".  Yes, but it will affect resale value.  So just say no.You can find a pristine 50-500 on Ebay (or another telephoto zoom) for not too much more than you paid for this damaged lens.Sorry to hear about your hassles with this new lens.Best of luck and happy shooting, Markus

I agree with everyone else. The price is too high for the damage. The damage to the lens element alone probably won'y effect picture quality but it certainly effects the value of the lens. Personally I would just get a Nikon TC-14e for your Nikon 300mmf4 and be done with it.

I'm pretty sure I know who you bought this lens from, and if so I'm a bit surprised.  The description you quote is inaccurate enough that you should get a refund on your return shipping and an apology. That said, you paid about $300 less than the typical hammer price for this model on eBay, so you should expect some pretty significant cosmetic damage to be built into that price.  The owner of that company is a good guy, but he knows the market and isn't running a charity.

Oh, could you do a short sharpness comparison with your 300f4? Especially if the 200mm more are worth it or if you get almost the same detail at the f4 with 300mm.

I would send it back, fast. They were not honest in their discription & they are asking too much for the lens. There may be other problems & since the were not completly honest about the sale to begin with I would not trust them or the lens.best luck,fred

Send it back!!!!  You're running out of time!

Thanks Michael...the lens went back today no questions asked with return FedEx label already in the box it came in.  I don't fault the company, I just think they could have been more descriptive in their assessment of the condition of the lens.   I would not in any way hesitate doing business with this company in the future.  It just didn't work out.Folks are asking me why not use my 300mm with a TC 1.4/2.0- and I do, but I have a gap in my lens arsenal that i'm trying to fill with the best price/performance in the 70-300 range and thought the 50-500 would fill that range, but me thinks it's TOO HEAVY to cart around at events...... Yikes!!!