Which pair of lenses to get?

[jhpeterson]

Omfg, now you got me thinking of the 70-200mm f/4 IS or 70-200mm f/2.8 IS.

Guess you have to ask yourself, what light levels you'll be working in, at what focal lengths and distances and how much depth of field you'll field.
I'd give the nod to the f/2.8 (though not the original IS version), not only for the brighter image in the viewfinder, but also (much like your eyes) because of better AF response.

[BokChoiTV]

Omfg, now you got me thinking of the 70-200mm f/4 IS or 70-200mm f/2.8 IS.

Guess you have to ask yourself, what light levels you'll be working in, at what focal lengths and distances and how much depth of field you'll field.
I'd give the nod to the f/2.8 (though not the original IS version), not only for the brighter image in the viewfinder, but also (much like your eyes) because of better AF response.

Again, I'm going to use it mainly for video, so the AF response isn't going to be too much of a deal for me.
So my question now is:
Is it more logical for me to go with the 70-200mm f/4 IS + 50mm 1.4
Or just go with the 70-200mm F/2.8 IS (Mk I) and no prime (since I won't have the budget for it).

[florianbieler.de]

For 24-70 I recommend the Tamron with 2.8 and VC. Telephoto wise, well no one can decide that for you. The 70-200 4L IS is dead sharp, 2.8L II IS is even sharper. Also, double the cost.