I've read a post from a photo forum that claims that the person tested a lens but felt it was 'bad' as one side of the lens produces consistently blur images. The retailer merely packed the lens back and returned to the shelves. He felt it was 'unethical'.

My view on this matter is: life is never black or white. Every item you buy off the shelf has the potential of being opened and 'used'. I'm sure most electronic retailers allow you to test the actual product before you purchase. For lenses, you might want to test several copies before accepting one. For those that you decided not to buy, retailers will pack them back into the boxes, thereby becoming 'used'. Testing before purchase is one way for the retailer to let you check the condition and quality of the item before your commitment to purchase.

'One man's meat is another man's poison.' Someone may claim the lens is blur but another would see nothing wrong. Some people will accept a new lens with minor dust (perhaps it's an old lens model on the shelves for years) but others would demand for speck-free condition. Many buyers test multiple lens before deciding to choose one, but that doesn't the rest of the lens should RMA.

Look in another way: would you buy a lens from a shop who has a no-test policy and all the lens boxes are shrink-wrapped, claiming that they are all brand new untouched and so take no responsibility of whether the lens are sharp, "any problems, please go back to distributor."

Afterall, we are individuals with a mind of our own, with different priorities and values. Some would buy a lens without testing (obviously they don't care about the sharpness), some wouldn't mind second hand lens (coz they are value-conscious), or grey sets (they never believe in warranty, perhaps). We should not impose our own values to others but instead, learn to perceive from their views and accept their views, but not necessarily agree with their views. I myself found a sizable dust speck on a new lens and told the retailer about it, but I don't expect the retailer to RMA the lens because of what I say. I could imagine the distributor would probably chid the retailer for being so 'particular', and who knows, the distributor may remove the retailer from the 'priority list' of getting the latest lens.

It's never the interest of the retailer not to sell off the goods on hand. Their experience probably tell them that someday someone would come to accept the lens' lack of sharpness and buy it. However, if the retailer felt that the condition of the lens is not sellable (e.g. scratches on the lens), they may attempt to RMA, but then again the distributor would claim it's damaged at the shop.

We can never expect everyone, be it individuals or companies, to be 100% ethical and truthful. The fact of the matter is: blatantly-honest people rarely makes a good living (haven't we seen enough of such dramatised portrayals on TV?). At some point of time, we might choose to be a little less honest, much like telling a white lie, but backed with responsibility. For example, a retailer may re-sell a used lens, but he backs it up with warranty, so if indeed the lens spoils within the period, the fault can be rectified.