Choices, choices...50-135 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8?

[996GT2]

I'm selling my Canon 55-250 IS soon, with the intention of upgrading to an f/2.8 telephoto. I have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, so I am looking for a lens that will complement it and give me more reach.

I'm currently looking at the Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 and Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L non-IS. Obviously, there is a pretty big gap between these two lenses. I am not really considering the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8 right now because ALL of the Sigma lenses I've owned in the past had AF accuracy issues.

Some intended uses would be sports and portraiture. Should I go for the 50-135 Tokina or spend more for the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L? I shoot a 40D.

Also, how well does the Canon 70-200 AF with a 1.4x TC attached?

 

[The Stigenator]

How about the tamron 70-200 f2.8?

 

[damocles]

What sports are you looking to shoot?

 

[xchangx]

I can pretty much guarantee that the Tokina isn't going to auto-focus fast enough for sports. Plus with the Canon you'll get a little more extra reach.

 

[klocwerk]

I'm selling my Canon 55-250 IS soon, with the intention of upgrading to an f/2.8 telephoto. I have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, so I am looking for a lens that will complement it and give me more reach.

I'm currently looking at the Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 and Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L non-IS. Obviously, there is a pretty big gap between these two lenses. I am not really considering the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8 right now because ALL of the Sigma lenses I've owned in the past had AF accuracy issues.

Some intended uses would be sports and portraiture. Should I go for the 50-135 Tokina or spend more for the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L? I shoot a 40D.

Also, how well does the Canon 70-200 AF with a 1.4x TC attached?

Honestly you need to decide if you need the range from 135-200mm. I think most of us would agree that the Canon is the superior lens of the two, it's up to you to determine your needs though.
Before you sell that 55-250 go shoot some sports as you usually would, but limit yourself to no more than 135mm and see if you're happy.

 

[randomlinh]

The canon is definitely better, but it's also heavier and more expensive. And, personally, 200 is pretty long on crop to handhold. But if you're comfortable, go with it.

That said, I have a 50-135. It's not light by any means, but a good size. And it's a wonderful lens IQ wise. It more closely matches the 70-200's range on FF, which I like. Yes, it's slow, especially when you go from one end of the spectrum to the other in focusing. You'll have a problem finding it though, as I think it got discontinued (not sure why, maybe Pentax wanted to keep it for themselves).

I'm 2 for 3 in Sigma lenses, my 30 (used) is spot on, as is my 50. the 70-200 FF'd I think, but it huge and I was going to return it anyway.