70-200mm lens...which one & why?

I currently own a Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 which I use frequently but have been considering something new. The dslr body that I have is a Canon 70D.

I'm interested in getting a 70-200mm lens. I have it narrowed down to Canon & Tamron but as you can see there are some price differences especially since the Canon is a f/4 and the Tamron is a f/2.8..but given my budget, these fall into that category. I'd prefer to be closer to $1000-1200 vs $1500 but if the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 was well worth it then I think I can stretch it.

I have read that the Canon 70-200mm f/4 is sharper than both the Canon & Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses.
I think I'd be using it mostly during the day and long exposure night photography. As for indoor, low light photography...it may occur but not as often. I do travel to Disney often, which is where I shoot a large portion of my photos so I might use it in an indoor dark ride at times but even at it's widest 70mm, that could be too tight anyway.

Another reason why I'm interested in this lens is that when I decide to move to a full frame camera, this lens will still be used with that also.

Below, some current prices mostly from B&H Photo and the refurbished Tamron price is from Amazon. I know that Canon sells refurbished lenses directly but currently that part of theor website is down for maintenance.

Some of the questions I have are...which one would you recommend and why?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Lens
new- $1149-$1199
used- $929.95
refurbished- $1039.95

Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD lens
new- $1399-1499
refurbished- $999

I know that Sigma has a 70-200mm lens too, which I'm open to opinions also.

Buy a used 70-200f4 IS for around $800. That said there are a few misconceptions in the above. The f4IS is sharper than the original 2.8 IS, but not so the 2.8 ISII. The F4IS was canon's sharpest zoom and was the first innthat range to get 4 stop IS. The MkII 2.8 is even sharper and has the new IS so if its within your budget you are golden. But the f4IS is a tremendous value. As for the 3rd party lenses I would only go there if you absolutely require 2.8 on a budget.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17762257
Buy a used 70-200f4 IS for around $800. That said there are a few misconceptions in the above. The f4IS is sharper than the original 2.8 IS, but not so the 2.8 ISII. The F4IS was canon's sharpest zoom and was the first innthat range to get 4 stop IS. The MkII 2.8 is even sharper and has the new IS so if its within your budget you are golden. But the f4IS is a tremendous value. As for the 3rd party lenses I would only go there if you absolutely require 2.8 on a budget.

^^^^^ Gonzo hit the nail on the head of the head. I sold my 70-200 F/4 IS basically brand new for $775

I shoot Nikon and chose the Tamron f2.8 VC. For me the price fit my budget and the performance is excellent.
I read reviews until I couldn't read anymore.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17762257
Buy a used 70-200f4 IS for around $800. That said there are a few misconceptions in the above. The f4IS is sharper than the original 2.8 IS, but not so the 2.8 ISII. The F4IS was canon's sharpest zoom and was the first innthat range to get 4 stop IS. The MkII 2.8 is even sharper and has the new IS so if its within your budget you are golden. But the f4IS is a tremendous value. As for the 3rd party lenses I would only go there if you absolutely require 2.8 on a budget.

I own both. There's a slight difference in sharpness between the two, noticeable with some serious pixel peeping (all other things considered). In my comparison I could have sworn it wasn't sharpness but difference in contrast (I could make edits so that both test shots were identical), but old eyes will do that. Impressively either is very sharp from corner to corner at both wide and zoom ranges (at f/2.8 only slightly less so). The larger difference is better handling of CA and less vignetting with the newer f/2.8, both fixable in LR.

Lugging around lenses for several days during music festivals can get tiring so I originally opted for the lighter f/4. It turns out to have been a somewhat costly boo-boo on my part, I now use the f/2.8 exclusively, with the 6D as my primary body to save weight. IS is excellent on both, but if you need to stop action in low light situations you will need the f/2.8 - save up and start working out at the gym

Good luck with your choice.

Hello

I recently got the 70-200 f/4L IS USM and it is now my best lens, only switch to my 35mm when indoors. Its light, can easily walk around all day with it and being f/4 does allow for more DoF latitude. For example taking pictures of a little 4 year old running around you can't have a silly shallow DoF (f/2.8) or you are (I am, I should say) more likely to get parts out of focus. Having the f/4 usually means he is all in focus. Yes it does mean increasing ISO when it gets a bit darker - but from the results, not really a problem.

As for sharpness, some of the results I have had are staggeringly sharp. For the cost of this in comparison to the bigger and much heavier f/2.8 it was as easy answer - for me that is.

I used to own both and sold of the F/2.8 (V1) and kept the F/4. The F/2.8 wasn't a big issue for me and the F/4 was lighter for travel and slightly sharper. I eventually sold the F/4 for about 800$ and miss the heck out of it sometimes. Either way the focal length is handy.

eon_designs wrote in post #17763191
For example taking pictures of a little 4 year old running around you can't have a silly shallow DoF (f/2.8) or you are (I am, I should say) more likely to get parts out of focus. Having the f/4 usually means he is all in focus.

You do know you can stop down the Tamron to f4 right?

I have the Tamron and have zero complaints about it. It is sharp, fast and accurate focusing.
I would recommend the Tamron f2.8 over the Canon f4 any day.

delta0014 wrote in post #17763205
You do know you can stop down the Tamron to f4 right?

I have the Tamron and have zero complaints about it. It is sharp, fast and accurate focusing.
I would recommend the Tamron f2.8 over the Canon f4 any day.

Based on research I did before stepping up to the Canon f/2.8 I'd say you don't do much action photography requiring accurate focus in AI-Servo, and at 200mm f/4 there is no comparison, the Canon wins.

I have owned a Canon 70-200 f/4 IS for many years -- about a year after Canon originally released the lens. It has great image quality and AF performance, and the size & weight make it great when you want to travel light. I have a 135 f/2 L for those rare times I need a faster telephoto. The combined cost of the two is about the same as a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.

Even after adding a 100-400L (and later upgrading to a 100-400L II), I just cannot bring myself to get rid of the 70-200 f/4 IS. The size & weight make it a great alternative, where a 70-200 f/2.8 would be about the same size and weight as the 100-400L.

eon_designs wrote in post #17763191
Hello

I recently got the 70-200 f/4L IS USM and it is now my best lens, only switch to my 35mm when indoors. Its light, can easily walk around all day with it and being f/4 does allow for more DoF latitude. For example taking pictures of a little 4 year old running around you can't have a silly shallow DoF (f/2.8) or you are (I am, I should say) more likely to get parts out of focus. Having the f/4 usually means he is all in focus. Yes it does mean increasing ISO when it gets a bit darker - but from the results, not really a problem.

As for sharpness, some of the results I have had are staggeringly sharp. For the cost of this in comparison to the bigger and much heavier f/2.8 it was as easy answer - for me that is.

This lens was the first I've owned that threw a wrench at the concept that better gear doesn't make a better photographer.

As for the f/2.8 L II, I'm thinking of making a trailer for it. Sucker is heavy!

I had one flavor of the f/2.8, it was too heavy for me to use regularly. My smaller, lighter f/4 IS USM gets a lot more used.

You will not want the 2.8 around your neck for a day at Disneyland. It's a beast. Awesome lens though.

I have the f4 IS and don't use it that much since getting the 135L but it is an extremely versatile lens in a not so large package.

if you shoot low light often and/or dont have a proper portrait lens, then the 2.8 wins it.

the F4 is more of a lightweight travel lens, unless you have a stupid good low light monster like the 1Dx or 6D, then you might be able to get by with F4. I've shot with pretty much all the canon 70-200's, the tamron is about 95% as good as the 2.8mkii. Not sure I'de ever shoot with one again, simply too heavy for everyday stuff.

I'd say forget the Tamron and the Canon f4L IS.

Go for a used Canon 70-200 f2.8L. It is in the same price range. It is dreamy and IS is pointless anyways when you're trying to take photos of your family members or when you're on a dark ride. With camera nowadays, just open it up to F2.8 and crank up the ISO. The Canon 70-200 f2.8L (non-IS) produces some of the sharpest and dreamiest looking photos at f2.8, you won't regret it. I'd take one over a new Tamron 70-200 f2.8 any day.

http://crashcoursephot​ography.com/canon-70-200-f2-8l-review/

It's my go-to lens for everything, people/portraits, landscapes and the occasional outing. It's not all that bad lugging the thing around. The photos you get will be worth it! Check out my review in the link above if you want to see some examples from this lens