budget 70-200 F2.8?

[quantbits]

Thanks in advance for all the replies!

So I opted for a set of casual gear before I get my L gear.
I don't want to use my pro photography gear on a casual basis, and have something happen to it, but I still want sharpness and speed.

I just purchased a Tamron 17-50 F2.8.
( L equivalent is 17 -55 F2.8 IS next year. )

I need to purchase a 70-200+ F2.8 carry around.
(L equivalent is 70-200 F2.8 IS.)

I'm looking to buy 700~ and under, because then I might as well get a $1000 70-200 F2.8L.
I'm leading towards a 55-150~ F2.8 (Tokina/Sigma), Sigma/Tamron 70-200 F2.8, or a Canon 55-250 IS - for the 50mm/F2.8.
I'm also leaing towards the Caon 70-200 F4L, because of its price and "L"-ness.
An old Canon 80-200 F2.8L also sounds good if I could find one... I hear image quality is good. $600~ I hear.

I'm extremely attracted to the Canon 70-200 F4L, but I fear it is slow and will hunt in low light.
I have a theory that the Canon 55-250 IS will work better in low light, despite F5.6, producing less blurry pictures, becoming a "budget semi F2.8".
I'd like to get range without sacrificing sharpness.

Is there anything I've not researched, stated wrong, or any other contenders I should be aware of?

[marxz]

I don't know what country you're in (you don't have it in your profile) but try looking on the second hand market.

Old copies of the non IS 70-200 f/2.8 L are going for an absolute song - last week I payed less than 1/5 of the new cost of the IS version from a shop that had a dozen or so used copies for sale, the even older non USM 80-200 f/2.8 L even cheaper on eBay.

and if your fine losing 1 stop (and losing a lot of weight and a less obvious lens) then the 70-200 f/4 non IS is a real bargain used.

[quantbits]

I live in SF, USA.

Ebay-wise:
the non L version seems to to go for $1000~.
the L IS version seems to go about $1800~.
the 80-200 2.8 seems to go aobut $600~.

Could you tell me how much you paid approximately for your non IS L vs an L IS? Thank you for your time.