In EGA, a presheaf $\mathcal{F}$ on a space $X$ with values in a category $\mathcal{C}$ is called a sheaf if it futher satisfies the axiom:
For all open coverings $(U_\alpha)_{\alpha \in I}$ of an open set $U$, with $U_{\alpha} \subset U$, $\mathcal{F}(U)$ is the inverse limit of the system $(\mathcal{F}(U_\alpha))$, $(\mathcal{F}(U_\alpha \cap U_\beta))$ with the obvious restriction maps $(\rho_\alpha)$ and $(\rho_{\alpha \beta})$
In other words, for any object $B$ in $\mathcal{C}$ and $f \in Hom(B,\mathcal{F}(U))$ the map $$f \mapsto (\rho_\alpha \circ f) \in \prod Hom(B,\mathcal{F}(U_\alpha))$$ is a bijection from Hom$(B,\mathcal{F}(U))$ to the collection of $(f_\alpha)$ such that, for any pair $(\alpha, \beta)$ agree upon further restriction: $\rho_{\alpha \beta} \circ f_\alpha = \rho_{\beta \alpha} \circ f_\beta$. (Or in the more usual language given a $B$ with such maps $(f_\alpha)$ there is a unique $f:B \to \mathcal{F}(U)$ such that $f_\alpha=\rho_\alpha\circ f$).
It turns out if $\mathcal{C}$ is one of the usual categories like the category of rings, this definition gives us the usual definition of a sheaf, which we can also show is equivalent to being the equalizer of the sequence $\mathcal{F}(U) \longrightarrow \prod_{\alpha\in I} \mathcal{F}(U_\alpha) {{{}\atop {\Large\longrightarrow}}\atop{{\Large\longrightarrow}\atop {}}}\prod_{\alpha, \beta\in I} \mathcal{F}(U_\alpha \cap U_\beta)$. (Or we can just see that both the definition as a limit and an equalizer satisfy the same universal property).
So say $(A_\alpha), (A_{\alpha \beta}), (\rho_{\alpha \beta})$ is an inverse system. Is it true that by the same reasoning
$$\lim_{\gets} A_\alpha = A\longrightarrow \prod_{\alpha\in I} A_\alpha {{{}\atop {\Large\longrightarrow}}\atop{{\Large\longrightarrow}\atop {}}}\prod_{\alpha, \beta\in I} A_{\alpha \beta}$$
Seems bit strange to me? If I am not making a mistake, doesn't this make one of the constructions superfluous?