New Canon or Other 70-200 2.8?

I'm not a pro, a hobbyist I'd say. Looking at 70-200 2.8 lenses. I'm a pixel pepper, and try to get the best image possible whenever possible. I will be picking up the 7dii later this year. I shoot mostly car shows, products, parties, at all different times of day. The Canon lens is 1k more, but it's resale value will stay if ever needed to sell. I don't do lots of zoom work, but I'm thinking with the 2.8 I can add an extender for day time activities, such as at the race track, for the extra reach.. Please help me decide which lens to choose.
Thanks, james.

I have the Canon 2.8 IS MkII, but a good friend and fellow photographer has been taking and showing me pics with her new Tamron and it's pretty amazing how sharp that lens is even wide open. As a hobbyist I think it's an absolutely stunning lens at it's price.

From reports online about sharpness and overall IQ...

Canon 70-200 mk II > Tamron 70-200 VC > Canon 70-200 mk I

In that order. Only you can decide if the extra $1k is worth it to have the white over the Tamron.

Heya,

If it's a hobby and you don't want to pay top dollar, then get the next best, which is the Tamron 70-200 F2.8 VC. Great lens. Saves you a serous chunk of cash while getting nearly the same quality as the latest Canon.

Note, these are heavy lenses, F2.8, 70-200's. Doesn't look like you have any telephotos, but these are seriously heavy lenses. You might need to consider that. If weight is of any concern, the next best route is the Canon 70-200 F4L IS. Much lighter, and very good and fast.

Alternatively, will you spend most of your time at 200mm? If so, consider a 200 F2.8L prime. Smaller, lighter, very sharp, and fast. If you know you need 70~180mm or so, then a zoom is a go. But if you know you're really just going to be at the long end of that zoom, then you have more options.

Very best,

(removed post)

Ok after lots of research and reviews, and second guessing, I have settled on the Canon lens. I own the 17-55, while not an L lens, I enjoy what it does, and have read many arguments it should be labeled an L lens.
I plan on using an extender to get more reach when needed, and at 200 the tamron reviews say it falls off a bit there, and the canon doesn’t. -that alone swayed me.
Thanks for the comments to my post above.
-james

...ordered and just got to wait for it to arrive!!

Myboostedgst wrote in post #17164483
From reports online about sharpness and overall IQ...

Canon 70-200 mk II > Tamron 70-200 VC > Canon 70-200 mk I

In that order. Only you can decide if the extra $1k is worth it to have the white over the Tamron.

Canon 70-200 mk II > Tamron 70-200 VC > Sigma 70-200 OS > Canon 70-200 USM > Canon 70-200 mk I

My take on your list.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17164911
Canon 70-200 mk II > Tamron 70-200 VC > Sigma 70-200 OS > Canon 70-200 USM > Canon 70-200 mk I

My take on your list.

Interesting. You think the non IS is better than version one of the IS?

Myboostedgst wrote in post #17166057
Interesting. You think the non IS is better than version one of the IS?

for overall IQ it is.

Myboostedgst wrote in post #17166057
Interesting. You think the non IS is better than version one of the IS?

I have the Sigma. I compared it to the Tamron VC and Canon II. It loses to both, especially wide open at 200mm. I've never compared it the Canon v1 or non-IS. That is how most reviewers rank the 70-200s.

Interesting. I was never really impressed with my 70-200 mk I. Maybe that is why. I really want to try the Tamron VC, and even more the 70-200 f4 IS (I had the non IS version too).

bk2life wrote in post #17164843
...ordered and just got to wait for it to arrive!!

From where?

The 70-200 f4 IS is a superb lens and it is much, much lighter than both the Canon and Tamron f2.8s. If you can stand the weight, the Tamron is an excellent lens.

Vote for the 70 - 200 f/4 L IS !