You ever start wanting to re-buy lenses you sold?

TSchrief wrote in post #14826749
I sold my 70-300 IS (micro-motor) USM to fund a 100-400L. Now I have to go buy a 55-250 for when I don't want to lug the 'beast'. Should have kept the 70-300.

I saw one for sale on the forum not too long ago. Like earlier not long ago.

I sold my 70-200 F4/IS because I wasn't using it that much relative to my other lenses.
I reluctantly sold it to fund an often used lens. The zoom was a great lens though
and is missed on the occasions I would have used it.

Sweet_Bee wrote in post #14827152
I saw one for sale on the forum not too long ago. Like earlier not long ago.

Thanks, but I really can't do any more glass right now. Today I picked up a Sigma 70-200 OS HSM. My wife will blow a gasket if I get anything else before she gets some new shoes or something.

I think the only lens I have sold and bought back was the 135L... And I think it will happen a third time down the road (no longer own it, but would love it back). Time will tell!

So Steve, I take it you're not of the camp that feels the 70-200 II makes the 135mm superfluous?

No way. The 135L renders images much differently. The 70-200 can not match the type of image you can get with the 135L... The bokeh, sharpness at f/2, contrast and colors, etc...

The 70-200 is much more versatile, is just as sharp and has IS. But even with all that, I feel they are very complimentary if you can own both. There is just something special about it... For a lens design as old as it is, it is simply perfect.

I miss the 70-200mm f/2.8 mk2, Zeiss 100MP, 24L II, Siggy 50mm, 45mm TS-E the most out of my past lenses.

I've gone through numerous copies of the 17-40 because I go through spurts where I'll use it everyday to where it sits in my bag. However, I have vowed that this time, I'm not going to be quick to sell it. I feel for the photography I do (city/landscape) that my lens lineup suits me just fine. So hopefully I won't be selling my current 17-40 copy.

Yes. 17-40L... I miss it too.

I want my 24-70L MK1 back. Still waiting for the MK2

Invertalon wrote in post #14828512
No way. The 135L renders images much differently. The 70-200 can not match the type of image you can get with the 135L... The bokeh, sharpness at f/2, contrast and colors, etc...

The 70-200 is much more versatile, is just as sharp and has IS. But even with all that, I feel they are very complimentary if you can own both. There is just something special about it... For a lens design as old as it is, it is simply perfect.

Wow, well said. Makes me want to go buy a 135.

Yep... Traded my 28-70 for a 24-105... was cool with that purchase... then sold the 24-105 and brought a 24-70.. I really regret that one.

Also the 17-40 f4L, Really miss that lens. Trying to figure out if its worth repurchasing one, or buying a 16-35 v1

I had 3 70-200 F4 L lenses.

oh yeah... I sold ALL my camera gear thinking I would get by on a G12... boy was I wrong. I sold my 40D Gripped, 17-40, 50 1.4, 24-70 and 70-200 f4 is and 430ex. After a year of kicking myself nearly every other weekend, I pulled the trigger on a used 7D,10-22, 24-70, 70-300 IS, and recently stretched for a 35L by selling my 24-70 and moving to a 24-105 and using the extra cash towards the 35L.

I know I'm all over the board with this one and have owned two 24-70's and I'm on my second 24-105. After all that, I"m finally set on the 24-105. It's so much easier to walk around with as a general walk-around and quite frankly, I felt 2.8 wasn't nearly fast enough for indoor shooting of a 3 year old. Now I just need to replace my 70-200 f4 is... I miss that guy a lot too but currently don't have the need for the focal length so I feel I'm fine with the 70-300 is. sigh...

Had a 17-40L on a 20D then 7D, sold it for Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, upgraded to 5D3, sold the 17-50, now want the 17-40 back as an UWA instead of a 'normal' zoom.