Have you ever sold a lens only to buy the same lens back?

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.

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!

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.

Talley wrote in post #18613685
Well it didn't take long... I bought my same 200 F2 IS I sold a month ago back.

.
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?


.

It’s complicated. Let me ponder on that and return in the morning.

I've done it a few times but make no mistake about it i'm not you

More times than I care to remember.

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:

- Financial issues; sometimes people go through hard times and sell gear (that they like) just to raise money. When the hard times are over they re-acquire the same gear (see Choderboy above)

- Want to try something new. They sell their current gear and change to something different thinking it will be better. Sometimes it is, sometimes they're happier with what they had originally, so they go back to it. To find something that fits our "artistic vision" we often have to try out a few options, and often can't afford to own all the options at the same time, so we switch things around, decide what we like best, and go back to that at the end. I suspect that's what Talley does except that he never decides, he just keeps switching and switching always looking for that elusive perfect setup

Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC

I had owned my 6D for a while and was not using my crop XSi much at all. I think I sold the lens after i bought a Tokina 16-28 for the 6D.

Sold it on Craigslist for 250 or 275 which was kind of amazing.

Bought it back on here for $150 I think, maybe 6 months ago. The boys are enjoying photography and when it comes time to get into aperture/DOF I wanted a small 2.8

With the advances in crop performance, I will probably stick with one FF and one crop and hold on to the lens for good now.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Have fun!

I seen a guy use a running type stroller that had biccyle tires to go off-roading carrying his gear.

I’m too much of a pack rat to sell gear in the first place.

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.