what lenses have you sold in the past and why?

Sort by date Sort by votes
alexturton

alexturton

I shoot what i find interesting; nothing else
Sep 16, 2012
214
0
6,496
www.flickr.com
#1
I see lots of posts re: "what should I buy" but I've never seen any on what people have got rid of, and more importantly why.

Here is what I've sold in the past and why (in order).

Canon 18-135 - was never really impressed with the IQ. Always left me wanting more.

sigma 24-70 2.8 (v2) - AF wildly inconsistent. Bokeh very unattractive (I would call it 'crunchy'). I never really trusted this lens, or liked the photos it took. Sold it for canon 17-40 on a whim, as I needed a gen zoom quickly for a holiday.

canon 17-40 - The IQ, flare control, contrast and AF were all great, however I was never excited by the zoom range on crop, so sold it for 17-55. However I regretted selling it once I bought my 5d3.

canon 2x TC ii - I bought it when it was mis-priced in a local camera shop. However, the IQ was crap so I never used it.

Canon 7d - was a great camera, but after 3 years of (heavy) shooting it started to show signs of wear so I decided to go full frame and replaced it with a 5d3.

Canon 85 1.8 - sold for 85 1.2 ii. However wish I kep the 1.8 aswell as sometimes the f1.2 is just to big/heavy/slow AF to use out and about (althought when it nails it the results are glorious).

canon 50 1.4 - sold for 50L 1.2. Best decision I ever made. Wish I did it 3 years ago. It now lives on my camera.

canon 100mm macro - a lovely lens. However I took it to a humid butterfly farm which killed the aperture blades (they got stuck). I got it fixed by an authorised canon repair centre but it was never the same lens after I got it back. It still worked fine, but the AF was so slow after. So sold it, on the cheap :(, and replaced it with the 100L

canon 17-55 - just sold it as I upgraded to full frame and no longer really use my 60d (I keep my 60d for backup purposes and when I go to the zoo). Plus to be honest, I've never really been impressed by wide open IQ or contrast. Given my shooting style (run and gun) I don't really have the need for IS and I prefer shooting at wider apertures than f2.8.

sigma 10-20 - A wonderful lens. Never had any complaints, however I no longer use it because I upgraded to full frame. so gonna purchase a FF equivelent like the sigma 12-24 or canon 16-35.
 
#2
I had no idea what I was doing to begin with, so some lenses I got I didn't need, or didn't understand how best to use them. Otherwise, I upgraded progressively, and sold the older ones as I couldn't afford to keep both.

After the kit lens that came with my secondhand 300D I got a Tamron 70-300 "macro" telephoto zoom, on the recommendation of an acquaintance. But it lacked IS, and I didn't understand at the time the need for certain shutter speeds to prevent camera shake. Eventually I sold it because I wanted better image quality anyhow (it was pretty poor with a 2x teleconverter, and I was chasing birds by that point). So I went with the cheapest Canon L zoom, the 70-200 f/4 (I'd also picked up a 1960s 400mm lens, but it was too poor for any use but moon photography, so I sold that too). A beauty, but I wanted more reach, so I sold that and got the 400mm f/5.6. But by this point I knew I wanted IS - with the 50D I wasn't able to get the ISO high enough to shoot fast-moving subjects in low light at f/5.6 (under trees say). So I sold that and got my current long lens, the 500mm f/4 II (and the 5D3 - together they're a great combination for my purposes).

I also got a secondhand Canon 28-80mm lens, but as it covered focal lengths I had in other, better lenses, I sold that one too. I also sold the 200mm f/2.8L because although image quality was good, I found chromatic aberration too high wide open, and since I wanted it mostly for flowers, I couldn't remove it in post without ugly desaturation of petal and leaf edges. I got the 85 f/1.2 II with the proceeds (also after selling my 50mm f/1.4 which was good, but I've always wanted the widest aperture possible, and it wasn't really usable wide open). I've yet to get a replacement at that focal length due to the big step up in cost (in theory the 200mm f/1.8 or f/2L IS).

I have to disagree with your assessment on the 2x II extender. I use it all the time, and if you stop down a little (I shoot with it on my big lens for 100mm at f/10) you get good - sometimes great - results. It is a step down in image quality from the 1.4x extender though (I don't know how much better the 2x version III is).
 
Upvote 0
#3
Upvote 0
#4
Is this the GAS group meeting?

EF-s 18-55 III non IS was my starter lens. I got this with a 1000D and learned to use the camera with that.
Sold to get a 50 1.8 II as my budget was limited back then, and I liked the bokeh pictures i could make.
Sold the 50 1.8 II to buy a zoom again. The 17-85mm
Replaced that with a 28 1.8 and a 50 1.4 Added a 70-300 IS (non L)
Sold the lot to get a 24-70 2.8
bought a 100-400, and sold it to get a 70-200 2.8 IS with 2x TC, sold the TC to get a 1.4 which I never got around to.
Bought a 10-22 from canon, sold it to buy a Lotus Europa (yes, a car, yes it was for the same amount of money)
Bought a 18-55 IS II for filming, gave that to a friend
Bought a tokina 11-16, upgraded to full frame body so had no use for it.
Sold the lotus, bought a 15mm fisheye 45 minutes later, hated autofocus, traded it for a 17-40L which I sold to buy a 8-15mm fisheye.

And then there is the gear I bought because it was cheap, and sold on for a profit. Which is another 17-85, another 70-300 IS. A 28-80, a 55-200, a 18-200 IS, a 50 1.8 first version, sigma 150-500, tamron 70-300 with macro (junk) kenko 1.5TC (also junk) All were sold after only testing them, and for a profit.

I have never sold a lens I've bought new, and therefore I've never sold at a loss.

Right now I have my 40mm for sale (buying a 50 1.4 again), which will be my first shop purchased lens to sell. But I bought at a rebate, so loss should be minimal :)

To recap reason. I've sold the 18-55 non IS, 50 1.8 II and 17-85 because they were rubbish. All other lenses I sold to get something I liked more. The 15mm fisheye didnt focus very well on my body, which I think was a bad copy or something.

If I could afford it I would still have the 28 1.8, 50 1.4 and 100-400. But like most people, there are limits to what I can spend. So I have whats in my signature.
 
Upvote 0
#5
Canon 50mm 1.8 (v1): Sold for 1.4 (small profit)

Canon 50mm 1.4: Sold for Sigma 1.4.

Canon 18-135mm: Came with 60D, but never used it.

Rebel XTi & Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 (v1): Got cheap to resell for a profit.

Canon 24-70mm 2.8L (v1): Got a Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC. Had trouble getting a price I wanted so I traded it for a Sigma 35mm 1.4 + cash.

Tamron 28-300mm: Got it really, really cheap. Didn't like it. Sold for a profit.

Canon 17-55mm 2.8: Upgraded to FF (see previous 24-70 entry).

Sigma 30mm 1.4: Upgraded to FF (and got the Sigma 35mm 1.4 in another trade).

Tokina 11-16mm 2.8: Upgraded to FF.

Sigma 8-16mm: Upgraded to FF. Got the Sigma 12-24mm II.

Kenko PRO 300 DGX 2x (v2): Seemed much softer than the 1.4x and I had a Canon 2x III. Sold for small profit.

Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 II: Upgraded to FF. Never really used it anyway as I was able to get a refurb Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS II at a good price.

Tamron 60mm II Macro: Really slow to focus. Upgraded to FF. Got a Canon 100mm 2.8L Macro. Still have to sell this (sold it once, but it broke in shipping? Had it repaired under warranty). Will be the worst loss so far as it's one of only two lenses I bought new (and I forgot to send in the rebate on it).
 
Upvote 0
#6
Pentax M42 set - 24/28/35/50/55/85/105/135/150/200/300 - changed systems
Canon FD set 28/35/50/85/135/200/400/35-70/70-210/ - changed systems
Leica R set 24/35/50/80/135 - Leica abandoned system
Kept my Leica M set
Kept my EOS set
Now acquiring Fuji X set
 
Upvote 0
#7
This question has been asked before… http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17987.0

So, to save time I'll just quote myself. ;)

neuroanatomist said:
Lenses sold (in chronological order):

EF 300mm f/4L IS - after shooting my first hawk with my 100L Macro, it was obvious I needed something longer; I bought the 300/4 used, sold it (for a $150 profit) after getting the 100-400L for the extra 100mm with IQ better than the 300/4 + 1.4x

EF 200mm f/2.8L II - bought used, sold (for a $100 profit) after getting the 70-200/2.8L IS II

EF 85mm f/1.8 - bought new with my first dSLR (a T1i/500D), sold (at a $50 loss) after getting the 85L II

EF 24-105mm f/4L IS - bought used, sold (for the same price purchased) after getting a new copy of the lens in a 5DII kit

EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS - bought used, sold (for the same price purchased) after using it for ~4 months; I wanted to try it as a compact travel combo with the 24-105L, liked the size, didn't like the weird bokeh, the softness, or the zoom 'creep' (creep isn't the right word - once, when at 300mm tracking a bird that flew directly overhead, the extended barrel slammed back in so hard I nearly got a black eye from the camera's eyecup!)

EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 - bought new, sold (at a $50 loss) after getting the 16-35L II for my 5DII, liked the lower distortion of the 10-22mm, overall IQ of the 16-35 II on FF is better

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS - bought new with the T1i, IMO the best general purpose zoom for APS-C, sold (at a $100 loss) since I hadn't used it in months - good as it is, the 24-105L on FF is better

EF 1.4x II Extender - bought used, sold (for a $25 profit) after getting the 1.4xIII as a better match to the 600 II that I had just preordered

EF 2x III Extender - bought used, sold (for the same price purchased) after ordering the 2xIII as a better match for my 600 II, on the day the firmware update allowing f/8 AF on the 1D X was announced

EF 24-105mm f/4L IS - sold (for the same $800 paid as a kit lens), after getting the 24-70/2.8L II; really glad I sold it when I did, a few weeks later the 6D/5DIII kit prices for the lens dropped to $500/$600, and used prices took a big hit (there was just a new/unused white box one on my local CL for $550)

EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS - bought used, sold (for a $150 profit) earlier today (literally!), since it's been replaced by the 24-70 II + 70-300L as my go-to travel kit, the latter combo giving better IQ throughout the (slightly broader) range

All of my buying/selling of used lenses has been on CL, and overall I'm in the black on lens buying/selling. :)
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
#8
I think that my list is far too long to remember. I've sold all my Sigma lenses(10-20), they were junk. I've sold all my Tamron lenses except for my 17mm f/3.5.
I've sold at least 50 Canon EF lenses, many of them acquired with a old film body. I'll have to say that the worst Canon EF lens was better than the best Sigma lens I've owned.

I sold my one and only (14mm f/2.8) Samyang lens, it is the worst lens I've every owned by a wide margin.

I have also bought and sold numerous Nikon lenses, 300mm f/2.8, 200-400mm, 24-70 f/2.8G, 80-200mm f/2.8, and a host of lesser ones. They were all decent lenses, the biggest issue being excessive CA of the 24-70.
I have another bunch of Olympus, Sony, Minolta, Pentax, and other brands that I've collected and sold over the years. Lots of Canon FL & FT lenses as well.

I'm selling my collection down right now, and parting with most of my primes and using zooms more and more. I have far too much photo stuff, a whole room full of lighting, tripods, and other studio accessories.
 
Upvote 0
#9
Canon sold

EF20mm 1:2.8
Sold since I have got Zeiss 21mm 2.8. In addition it was sold to fund a used 14mm 2.8L II

EF16-35mm 1:2.8 L (version I)
Sold since I have TS-E 17, Zeiss 21 2.8, TS-E 24 II, and 24-... L zooms (also to fund a future possible 16-35 2.8 L III lens).

EF35-70mm 1:3.5-4.5
Bought temporarily in the late 80s to replace my 35-105 3.5-4.5 which was sent to service. It was sold when I got back my 35-105 (which coincidentally Canon had failed to fix - fortunately the problem was a bent piece of metal and was fixed by an independent ex Canon service man).

EF28-70mm 1:3.5-4.5 II
Didn't need it and had neglected to sell it. It was sold to fund a used 14mm 2.8L II

EF28-70mm 1:2.8 L
Sold to fund my 5DMkII 24-105 kit

EF100-300mm 1:5.6
Didn't use it since by then I had 70-200 2.8L and 300mm f/4L (non-IS)

EF1.4X II
Sold to fund a used EF1.4X III

EF2.0X II
Sold to fund a new EF2X III

Sigma sold

14mm 1:3.5
It was sold to fund a used 14mm 2.8L II

400mm 1:5.6 APO
Sold to fund my 5DMkII 24-105 kit

AF TELE-CONVERTER X1.4 FOR-CANON-AF
Sold to fund a used EF1.4X III

Tamron sold

AF TELE-CONVERTER 2X C-AF MC7
Sold to fund a new EF2X III
 
Upvote 0
#10
Like Mt Spokane Photograhpy, my list is longer than i care to remember. But there are some that have a story to share.

EF 16-35 f2.8L II: I never liked this lens from an IQ perspective (yes, I know I am the odd ball, since this is the primary lens amongst the top shooters at Reuter etc.) and I don´t like using wider than 24mm with people, so my use was limited to architecture and landscape. After I got the 17mm f4L TS-E and the Zeiss 15mm f2.8, I never used it and sold it. No regrets. Will probably have a look at the 14-24 (or whatever it´ll be) when it comes though.

EF 400mm f2.8L IS II: I sold it because I had the 600mm f4L IS II and thought it was a bit overkill. Got the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x, but I still regret selling it. Especially after seeing all of Eml58´s phenomenal arsenal of wildlife shots with this lens (he sold it too though ...). But it is unlikely that I will buy it again. I think a 300mm f2.8L IS II and the new 7DII (with the right spec) will be mighty tempting though (long hikes, low weight, proper reach with extenders ...)

EF 85mm f1.2L II: I have bought and sold this lens 2 times, because of the slow and difficult AF. But I now have No.3 and since I got the 1DX, I don´t find AF speed or accuracy to be a problem any more (still challenging at 1.2 though) and I love the IQ of this lens.

EF 50mm f1.2L: I sold this lens, not because I didn´t like its IQ, because it is a much better lens than pure sharpness comparisons suggests, but because i prefer a 35mm and 85mm combo instead. But since I got the Zeiss Otus 55mm f1.4, I have hardly used the 35 and 85, so maybe I´m about to change my mind again.

EF24mm f3.5L TS-E II: I had it, loved it, never used it, sold it, missed it, bought it again and will never part with it again.
 
Upvote 0
#12
I noticed that several of you have sold lenses at a profit. What is the key to doing this? Even with price tracking websites, you can't always guarantee you are buying at the lowest price. As for selling high, is it just a matter of finding a buyer who isn't savvy about pricing? If I were buying used, I would expect to pay a price lower than any retail price.

Or am I wrong in assuming that you are talking about new lenses? I can kind of see how one could buy a lens used, then sell it at a profit, because the used prices aren't as volatile as the new prices (rebates and sales around Christmas, sales on refurbs every few months). In the used market, the price is what it is. Not affected by holiday sales, etc.
 
Upvote 0
#14
mpphoto said:
I noticed that several of you have sold lenses at a profit. What is the key to doing this? Even with price tracking websites, you can't always guarantee you are buying at the lowest price. As for selling high, is it just a matter of finding a buyer who isn't savvy about pricing? If I were buying used, I would expect to pay a price lower than any retail price.

Or am I wrong in assuming that you are talking about new lenses? I can kind of see how one could buy a lens used, then sell it at a profit, because the used prices aren't as volatile as the new prices (rebates and sales around Christmas, sales on refurbs every few months). In the used market, the price is what it is. Not affected by holiday sales, etc.
Click to expand...

Depends on the time frame. New lens prices generally go up, and Canon sometimes boosts prices significantly. Hang onto an L-series lens for 5 years, selling it for more than you paid is reasonable.

There's also the 'new lens release effect'. When the 70-200/2.8 IS II and 24-70/2.8 II came out, they cost hundreds more than their predecessors, and prices for used copies of the older versions shot up $200-300.
 
Upvote 0
#15
I have a big list... and more often than not... the answer is, "To afford more gear."

18-55 is
75-300
70-300 is (I also didn't think it was much of an upgrade over the 55-250)
70-200 f/4 I liked it... but it was near useless in doors...
70-200 f2.8... because I was going to keep it but then someone bought it from me at a profit...
17-55 because I bought it with the intention of selling it, though it seemed like a nice lens.
24-105 because it was losing value quickly and I wanted to buy another at a lower price than I sold this one.
100L because I bought the 70-200 f2.8L is mkii and it seemed redundant
50mm f/1.8 because I was upgrading to the 50 1/.4
50 1.4 because I expected it to be 3x better than the f/1.8 and it wasn't... so it sat.
85 1.8 because someone bought it... I was keeping it for my daughter... but no... someone decided to pay me more for it than I paid.
28-135 I got it for my daughter and it was crap... so I sold it.

I feel as though there are more....
 
Upvote 0
#16
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Canon Says it’s up to Sigma to Make Full-Frame RF Lenses
Replies
153
Views
6K
roby17269
roby17269
C
Which lenses to take on
Replies
2
Views
414
neuroanatomist
neuroanatomist
E
Buy a new body in Taiwan and bring back to the US
Replies
3
Views
448
GirlsAreBeautiful
GirlsAreBeautiful
Richard-CN
The Best Super Zooms for Canon in 2025
Replies
3
Views
1K
bf
B
neuroanatomist
F00 conundrum
Replies
9
Views
680
neuroanatomist
neuroanatomist
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu