Will I end up regretting if I sell 70-200 f/4 IS?

If you don't use it, you don't use it. But, why not throw the 70-200 on the SL1 instead of the 55-250?

Sell it and pick up a 135 2.0 or 200 2.8!

I find it odd that people are recommending that you keep a $1,000 lens “just in case” you need it in some one off situation later. If you don’t use a lens, you paid $1,000 for something that offers $0 value to you.

As a photographer, the value of a lens is the photos you take with it….not the warm and fuzzy feeling you get from owning it (at least it shouldn’t be).

Lenses retain a lot of their value, and if you sell it, you’ll get most of what you paid for it back…chalk the loss you take as the cost of owning a lens for a fixed period of time.

Its hard to quantify this if you don’t shoot for money, but conceptually, even though you take a hit by selling a lens, there’s an opportunity cost attached to owning a lens you don’t use. Any funds you have tied up in lenses that sit on the shelf could be used to buy equipment that you actually would use, and find actual value in.

digital paradise wrote in post #16667907
I picked up the 2.8 V2 but still kept my f4 for a light travel zoom. It does not get used often but I know I'd regret it. It is a wonderful and light lens.

+1. Exactly what I did.

mystik610 wrote in post #16668007
I find it odd that people are recommending that you keep a $1,000 lens “just in case” you need it in some one off situation later. If you don’t use a lens, you paid $1,000 for something that offers $0 value to you.

As a photographer, the value of a lens is the photos you take with it….not the warm and fuzzy feeling you get from owning it (at least it shouldn’t be).

Lenses retain a lot of their value, and if you sell it, you’ll get most of what you paid for it back…chalk the loss you take as the cost of owning a lens for a fixed period of time.

Its hard to quantify this if you don’t shoot for money, but conceptually, even though you take a hit by selling a lens, there’s an opportunity cost attached to owning a lens you don’t use. Any funds you have tied up in lenses that sit on the shelf could be used to buy equipment that you actually would use, and find actual value in.

Is it any more odd than buying selling rebuying, selling again a lens repeatedly?

Maybe there is also some hard-to-quantify pleasure or satisfaction in possessing a finely tuned, superbly designed optical instrument, regardless of how many tines you use it a month. Kinda like owning a beater car that you drive every day versus the garaged Porsche that only comes out on sunny Saturdays?

gonzogolf wrote in post #16668050
Is it any more odd than buying selling rebuying, selling again a lens repeatedly?

Yes. Spending hundreds/thousands of dollars on something and never using it.

Tying up that much money on something because of some nagging feeling that you “might regret it” is an emotional/irrational decision. If you rationalize it, it doesn’t make sense to hold onto something that can be converted to cash (or gear you would actually use), if you get no use out of it. Lenses aren’t investments that appreciate over time.

Obviously if you’re certain that you’ll use a lens later down the road, then it might make sense to hold onto it until then…but if can’t specifically point to its usefulness now or at some point in the future, then it makes absolutely no sense to hold onto it.

Scrumhalf wrote in post #16668114
Maybe there is also some hard-to-quantify pleasure or satisfaction in possessing a finely tuned, superbly designed optical instrument, regardless of how many tines you use it a month. Kinda like owning a beater car that you drive every day versus the garaged Porsche that only comes out on sunny Saturdays?

I suppose it depends on where we find value in this hobby of ours….is it owning the gear? Or the actual photos we take.

If your goal is to become some sort of lens collector, then I guess I can see where you see value in a lens you don’t use, and by all means keep it.

If your goal is to actually take pictures, then it would make more sense to allocate your funds in such a way that maximizes your ability to take pictures!

mystik610 wrote in post #16668117
Yes. Spending hundreds/thousands of dollars on something and never using it.

.

But he bought it again multiple times. Implying that it gets some use.

If all buying decisions were made on a purely rational basis, everyone will be driving Corollas and Porsche and BMW will be out of business. The very essence of a discretionary purchase is spending on something that gives you pleasure but is not entirely essential. It's hard to rationalize these things all the time.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16666225
You wont miss it, until you need it. What I mean is you may go months without using it, but when you do need it you wont be satisfied with the lesser lens, then you will feel some regret. Its the nature of things.

Exactly the reason I won't sell mine.

2cruise wrote in post #16668150
Exactly the reason I won't sell mine.

Me too. I find myself using the 135L a lot more, but when I need it its there waiting.

Scrumhalf wrote in post #16668128
If all buying decisions were made on a purely rational basis, everyone will be driving Corollas and Porsche and BMW will be out of business. The very essence of a discretionary purchase is spending on something that gives you pleasure but is not entirely essential. It's hard to rationalize these things all the time.

I get what you’re saying as I’m car guy myself.

But lenses are tools, not status symbols (at least to me). A lens is only worth as much as the pictures it takes. No one cares that you have a 70-200 F4 IS in your closet.

I don’t mean to say that decision to buy, sell, or keep a piece of equipment should be a practical one (because this is not a practical hobby at all). The pointt is that all this gear is really, really expensive, and as a hobby, you should think about where you derive your enjoyment of this hobby from, and base your decisions on that.

If you get enjoyment out of simply owning something, then I can understand the value of that to someone.

But if you’re into this hobby to actually take pictures, then spend your money in such a way that maximizes actually taking pictures.

The Dark Knight wrote in post #16666261
Completely, no, not yet. I've tried both NEX and Micro 4/3 systems in the past, I just preferred the DSLR handling, so I got the SL1 as a smaller compromise. When I want to go even smaller I just pick up my new RX-100 or the EOS-M (one of which I need to sell).

The Sl1 is a nice stablemate to the 6D, that's what I have.

It is nice that you can use the same lenses on the two bodies, though the apparent focal length will change. Same flash as well, nice combo!

If it is not a finanical issue then just keep it. There is a thread about selling and re-buying the same lens. I did that only once with a Tokina 11-16 . Very expensive.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1358934

I owned the 70-300. A very nice lens but after trying out the 70-200 I sold it and purchased a 70-200. My friend who was not convinced about the IQ difference purchased my 70-300. He them borrowed my 70-200 and then sold the 70-300 and purchased a 70-200.

The 70-300 is a very good lens but there is just something about that L lens in particular. It's subtle but the 70-200 edges it out. If I need 300 my 300L F4 Is comes out.

I have heard a lot of good things about the 55-250. Good IQ for the price. Although I have never used it I will recommend it to people looking for a budget zoom.

I took it out of the bag to take pictures so I can sell it last night. And just couldn't part with it, damnit! I'll try again in a couple of days.