Well it didn't take long... I bought my same 200 F2 IS I sold a month ago back.
Who else is as crazy as me.
Apr 25, 2018 22:10 | #1 Well it didn't take long... I bought my same 200 F2 IS I sold a month ago back. A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Choderboy I like a long knob ![]() More info | Apr 25, 2018 22:24 | #2 Close. Sold 200 2.8 II when I was a bit hard up, bought a 200 2.8 (Mark1) later. Only difference is a built in hood on the older version. Dave
LOG IN TO REPLY |
gjl711 "spouting off stupid things" ![]() 56,267 posts Likes: 2948 Joined Aug 2006 Location: Deep in the heart of Texas More info | Apr 25, 2018 22:25 | #3 Nope. I'm one who takes forever to decide sometimes investigating for weeks (not straight mind you but lots of research) Then buy. So far I haven't had to re-buy a lens I sold. Then again, I don't sell all that often and when I do, it's cause I moved up. Not sure why, but call me JJ.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Tom Reichner "That's what I do." ![]() 16,036 posts Gallery: 180 photos Best ofs: 2 Likes: 6217 Joined Dec 2008 Location: from Pennsylvania, now in Washington state, road trip back and forth a lot, with extensive detouring More info | Apr 25, 2018 22:35 | #4 Talley wrote in post #18613685 ![]() Well it didn't take long... I bought my same 200 F2 IS I sold a month ago back. . "Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Apr 25, 2018 22:58 | #5 It’s complicated. Let me ponder on that and return in the morning. A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
LOG IN TO REPLY |
ed rader "I am not the final word" ![]() More info | I've done it a few times but make no mistake about it i'm not you http://instagram.com/edraderphotography/
LOG IN TO REPLY |
eddieb1 Senior Member ![]() 895 posts Likes: 202 Joined Apr 2013 Location: Oregon More info | Apr 26, 2018 00:26 | #7 More times than I care to remember.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
yellowt2 Senior Member 267 posts Likes: 67 Joined Sep 2009 More info Post edited over 3 years ago by yellowt2. (2 edits in all) | Apr 26, 2018 11:05 | #8 Tom Reichner wrote in post #18613703 ![]() . I have always been curious about this seemingly continual process of gear acquisition and liquidation, and sometimes re-acquisition. Why would someone change their gear, unless their artistic vision changes? I mean, we all have certain ways that we "see" a scene, and we naturally gravitate toward the gear that best helps us match that vision with our photos. If at one point you believed that the 200mm f2 helped you best express your artistic vision, then what changed that caused you to sell it? . Did you start to see the world in a different way, and therefore have a quantum shift in the type of images that you wanted to create? Then when you decided to re-acquire the lens, did you suddenly see the world around you in a a whole different way, again? It has long been a belief of mine that the images we create (or any art that we create) is an expression of our very selves. . This is sometimes referred to as artistic integrity - the belief that what we create comes from within; that it is a result of everything that we are and everything that we have experienced in our lives. . If a lens helps you to best express that, then how can it suddenly not 'work' for you anymore? . I can think of a couple reasons:
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Left Handed Brisket Combating camera shame since 1977... ![]() More info Post edited over 3 years ago by Left Handed Brisket. (2 edits in all) | Apr 26, 2018 12:10 | #9 Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20
LOG IN TO REPLY |
daleg Senior Member More info Post edited over 3 years ago by daleg. | Apr 26, 2018 13:22 | #10 Choderboy wrote in post #18613694 ![]() Close. Sold 200 2.8 II when I was a bit hard up, bought a 200 2.8 (Mark1) later. Only difference is a built in hood on the older version. I considered it a trade up and ended up $350 in front. Sold my 1D2n to a friend for a good price, he did not really like it, bought it back a year later for a bit less than I sold it for, just for nostalgia value, sold it again in above mentioned hard up period, I should check, if it's still in new owners possession I might buy it back for my third purchase! Strange coincidence. I have only re-purchased one lens that I have sold and it's this EF 200/2.8L II. In my case, it had sat idle for too long - I had a willing buyer - and I missed it almost immediately.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Apr 26, 2018 16:18 | #11 daleg wrote in post #18614039 ![]() Strange coincidence. I have only re-purchased one lens that I have sold and it's this EF 200/2.8L II. In my case, it had sat idle for too long - I had a willing buyer - and I missed it almost immediately. So I bought another copy. I may have come out $50 ahead. Wasn't really about the money. Even though I have too many lenses, this gem saves me from spending the large sum that Talley has invested in his 200/2. Also, it's a lot easier to lug around. Sherpa frowns much less. I wouldn't own the 200 2.8 II ever. I'd much rather lug around the 135L or 1.8A if I was worried about lugging around. A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
LOG IN TO REPLY |
daleg Senior Member More info Post edited over 3 years ago by daleg. (2 edits in all) | Apr 26, 2018 16:54 | #12 Talley wrote in post #18614172 ![]() I wouldn't own the 200 2.8 II ever. I'd much rather lug around the 135L or 1.8A if I was worried about lugging around. Also... I look homo like a mofo but my suitcase as my wife likes to call it streetwalker roller back makes weight a non issue. But I do agree with her... I'm not use to rolling a bag around but I'm slowly getting over that. Not that I would travel with the rolling bag but in that case I wouldn't travel with a 70-200 or 200L either. Different strokes. Really the valuation on weight/mass depends on situation/context. I use my 200/2.8 in situations where I'm on my feet all day with it. Weight matters. I also shoot a 600/4 II, sometimes with extenders, strobes, etc, on a 1DX2/1D4/7D2, w/Gitzo Series 5 & a Wimberley. But I'm damn sure not hiking anywhere with it.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
I seen a guy use a running type stroller that had biccyle tires to go off-roading carrying his gear. A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Apr 26, 2018 20:53 | #14 I’m too much of a pack rat to sell gear in the first place. Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
LJ3Jim Goldmember ![]() More info | Apr 26, 2018 21:21 | #15 100L 2.8 Macro. I had one for a number of years, but didn't use it much. I sold it, and I missed it. Bought another one from Canon Refurbished. I still don't use it much, but it's nice to have it in the bag. Image editing ok; C&C always welcome.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
y 1600 |
Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting! |
| ||
Latest registered member is Cut Out Way 804 guests, 211 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 |