I'm going to respectfully disagree with others about the 70-200 f/4. It is a great portrait lens. Will you wish you had IS and an f/2.8? Perhaps, but you need to consider your upper price limit. Both of those lenses at $900 refurbished is a great deal. What's more, that 70-200 f/4 L also makes a fantastic landscape lens. You'll know what I mean once you start using it for that purpose.
Thanks, Beav, I'm with you on this.
I still can't find the source, but I recall Roger at LensRentals writing somewhere that the 70-200 f/4.0 non-IS is slightly sharper than the IS version. On his site his take is "...one of the sharpest zooms made." My take is that while "technical specs" and such may rank it not as high, seeing those differences in the real world is mostly fantasy. I'd agree you will probably see a difference with the f/2.8 II, but such difference is not worth over $1500 for anyone but very top professionals.
I've had the f/4.0 non-IS for several years now and it would be my choice for what the OP mentions. It's perfect for anything from a tripod -- e.g., portrait and landscape. It's weaknesses are the non-IS and the not-so-wide aperture. My experience is it's great handheld outside in good light. It's sharp throught it's entire focal range at any aperture. Overall it approaches my 135 f/2.0 in image quality.
The OP also said he wants wider, and you don't get wider putting all your money into the 70-200 F/4.0 IS version. The 17-40 is the answer there, especially landscapes. I like the 17-40 and use it a lot. If you pay attention to what you're doing with it, you'll get great results. First, you do need to get smaller than f/4.0 -- I stay at at least f/5.6 or smaller. The distortion on the wide end can give you some clunkers if you're not paying attention -- I made the mistake of doing a hasty portrait (it was on the camera) of a man holding a baby. Too close, his hand is large out of proportion to the rest of the image. On the other hand, I do like that distortion in some images, especially landscape. Finally, I think it gets soft on the long end, so I stay under 35mm.
Anyway, I think the OP's initial take is the right one for him. He'll make a mistake if he listens to gearheads who will have him spend more money for something he doesn't need that may by 2% "better" theoretically.