Would anyone consider this to be "pro-level" lens choices? Read on..

[Bob Howland]

Your choices look fine to me. I'm puzzled why you would sell the 100 macro since, on those rare occasions when I shoot a formal head & shoulder portrait, that is the lens I grab. (I also own an 85 f/1.8 and 135 f/2 but I'm not a fan of minimal DOF portraits.) The macro lens is, if anything, too sharp for portraits but too much resolution is better than too little.

[tron]

The f/4L zooms are excellent. I would keep the 100mm macro though...

[kwwalla]

Any reason you need IS for that 70-200 f/4? I don't have it on mine, and I haven't missed it. Then again, 90% of my images use a tripod.

If you hand hold (event shooter), then the IS is priceless. Especially at the longer focal lengths! Will also help negate (to some degree) the slower apperature by allowing one to use slower shutter speeds.

[preppyak]

like paul13walnut5, I also don't see the point of the 24-105 when you have all those other lenses

* 17-40 f/4L (or upgrade to 16-35 f/2.8L)
* 35 f/1.4L
* 50 f/1.8
* 100 macro
* 70-200

looks like a great collection to me

I'd only add the 24-105 or 24-70 if I wanted to have a zoom so I could leave everything else at home, and for some reason I didn't deem the 17-40 good enough for that

as for the 70-200, I think I'd go for one of these:
* canon 70-200 f/4L IS if I want IS and a smaller lens
* tamron 70-200 f/2.8 if I need the speed
* canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II if I have money to spare and don't mind the extra weight

Yeah, I was thinking the same, and depending on your usage, the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS would end up costing you just slightly more than the 24-105 and 70-200 f/4's combined. You've got the wide covered with the 17-40. You've got the normal range covered with primes (35 and 50), and you've got the longer side covered with the 70-200 you get. Depending on how much macro you do, that would decide whether you keep that.

Another play, if you don't want to lug around the heavier 70-200 f/2.8, is to get the 70-200 f/4L IS, then take the $8-900 you'd have spent on the 24-105 and update your 50mm prime and get the 85mm prime. Then you'd be set for low light (primes), landscape (17-40), and portrait/travel (70-200 and primes).

Also, I owned the Tamron 28-75, and I now own the 70-200 f4L IS. There's really no comparison, I liked the Tamron, but I found the AF lacking and the image quality, while nice, doesn't match the L's. If you're other lenses are Canon, you'll notice the difference in color and contrast as well. I love the 70-200, it's on my camera probably 75% of the time.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Any reason you need IS for that 70-200 f/4? I don't have it on mine, and I haven't missed it. Then again, 90% of my images use a tripod.

 
The best argument for the f/4 IS version is that it uses a new optical formula, and is noticibly sharper than the non IS f/4 version.
 
The other reason is that you don't need a tripod for ordinary walk around shots.  Around here, in at least one of my favorite popular photographic places, use of a camera on tripod is banned.  And this is a out of the way city!  http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/oct/05/gardens-popularity-upends-its-calm/
 
Obviously, I avoid it like the plague on weekends!
 
I think that many areas in the USA that have a lot of people now ban tripods.
 
Nishinomiya Japanese Garden
 
http://www.mount-spokane-photography.com/Travel/Washington-State-Scenes/Spokane/i-CH636FX/0/X2/Canon-EOS-40D-IMG0962-X2.jpg

[cliffwang]

An used Tamron 28-75 2.8 seems an excellent option here. In Sweden they are 600 usd cheaper then used Canon 24-105. They also seem about equally sharp, you lose out on a 3-stop IS but get one f-stop in lens speed instead. You also get to keep 600 usd

I heard Tamron 28-75mm is good, but not great.  The new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC is the king for now.  The IQ is much sharper than Canon 24-70mm L MK1.  You can google "Tamron 24-70mm VC review", and you will see good review.  I personally is waiting for the Canon 24-70mm L MK2 and to see if I go with Tamron or Canon MK2.

[bp]

I'd also say skip the 24-105.   It's strength is being an all-purpose lens - good if you want to leave the rest of your bag at home - but if you typically carry multiple lenses with you, I'll bet you'd rarely use it. 

If you do add the 70-200 f4 IS (which is a fantastic lens, by the way - SO sharp), the only weakness in your lineup would be a lens with reach and wide aperture for low light.  The 85 1.8 or the 135L might fill that gap and get used more than the 24-105, imho

[scottkinfw]

The 70-200 f4L IS is a great lens.  It has some major advantages of the 2.8 II- it is smaller, and weighs a lot less, making it much more portable.  It produces wonderful, tack sharp pics with good contrast and color.  You should be very happy with it.
I have a 17-40 f4L and it is fairly sharp at around f6 to 8, and so I don't love this lens, and I am replacing it with the 24-105L which comes in the 5dIII kit.

sek

I'd also say skip the 24-105.   It's strength is being an all-purpose lens - good if you want to leave the rest of your bag at home - but if you typically carry multiple lenses with you, I'll bet you'd rarely use it. 

If you do add the 70-200 f4 IS (which is a fantastic lens, by the way - SO sharp), the only weakness in your lineup would be a lens with reach and wide aperture for low light.  The 85 1.8 or the 135L might fill that gap and get used more than the 24-105, imho

[awinphoto]

Those are two fine lenses.  There are those 2.8 snobs and it can be argued that 2.8's focus quicker, but I have those lenses and shoot professionally and haven't had to sweat about not having 2.8.  Go for it. 

[7enderbender]

I am keeping my 5d2 instead of splurging for 5d3. With this choice, and it was a tough one, I decided to update my lenses and here is my budget:

24-105L
70-200/4 IS L

** I will have buy the two lenses above, in addition to currently owning: 1) 17-40L, 2) 35/1.4L, 3)100mm macro, & 4) 50mm 1.8 Mk 1

This is my budget to the max. I am selling my 28-135 & 70-300 IS (non-L) and may even sell my 100mm macro. Am I making a good decision, guys? Please help me feel better about owning f/4.0 L Zooms. This is the absolute best I can afford!!  Thanks

Can't really go wrong either way, but I'm a bit confused - which may be my own perspective. Why add zooms? And what exactly are you trying to get to? Is it that you want all focal lengths covered and hence want the 3 f/4 zooms? That would make sense, especially given that you also keep at least one of your excellent fast primes.

I personally opted to not get any of the 70-200 zooms and instead bought the 200 2.8L II and the 135L. Both very very nice and quite portable. But so is the f/4 zoom. Maybe even skip the IS version unless you really need it. I personally find IS quite useless.

Another option would be to get a 24-70 (current version) and the 200 2.8L II. Should be about the same budget and then you have the speed and narrower DOF available if you need it.

[EOBeav]

Any reason you need IS for that 70-200 f/4? I don't have it on mine, and I haven't missed it. Then again, 90% of my images use a tripod.

If you hand hold (event shooter), then the IS is priceless. Especially at the longer focal lengths! Will also help negate (to some degree) the slower apperature by allowing one to use slower shutter speeds.

But...but...If you use IS, then you're going to be able to reduce/eliminate camera-shake blur, but not necessarily motion blur. You might get away with handholding at 1/15 sec., but you're still going to capture any movement within that time.

I recently shot an indoor play with my 70-200mm f/4 (non-IS), and I don't think I would have come out with better images had I utilized IS. Just something else to think about, I guess. I'm coming to realize that there are growing numbers in both IS camps: One swears by it, and the other believes it to be almost gimmicky.

[preppyak]

But...but...If you use IS, then you're going to be able to reduce/eliminate camera-shake blur, but not necessarily motion blur. You might get away with handholding at 1/15 sec., but you're still going to capture any movement within that time.

Yeah, but I actually find I use my 70-200 for a lot of landscape shots. I don't always have a tripod with me, but 1/10th or 1/15th is enough to blur a water falling. Or it might be the difference between shooting the landscape at f/4 or f/8.

I went with the IS version because it was sharper, but I think I've found some use for the IS here and there.

[EOBeav]

Yeah, but I actually find I use my 70-200 for a lot of landscape shots. I don't always have a tripod with me, but 1/10th or 1/15th is enough to blur a water falling. Or it might be the difference between shooting the landscape at f/4 or f/8.

I went with the IS version because it was sharper, but I think I've found some use for the IS here and there.

Point taken, but I guess I shoot a little differently than that. I generally shoot my landscapes on my 70-200 between f/11 and f/16, and my flowing water shots with that lens usually run in the .5 to a full second range. I'm not going to get out and say my way is the best way, but hopefully you get what I'm saying.

[dirtcastle]

While it's important to think about the "spread" of your various lenses, the decision should ultimately boil down to the individual lens and whether it will suit the purpose.

Personally, I find f/4 to be a serious limitation. I want lenses that perform indoors, outdoors, landscape, portrait, day or night. For me, an f/4 are outdoor/daytime/tripod lenses.

With regard to your potential lens spread, I would be aware of the potential redundancy between the following lenses:

17-40L
24-105L
70-200/4 IS L

The 24-105L is the odd-lens-out here... it doesn't pair up with either of the other lenses. But I do have it myself and I find it is very useful outdoors, during the day and especially if it is my ONLY lens in the situation. But otherwise, I find the f/4 limiting in indoor/night situations.

[Northstar]

The 70-200 2.8L IS II is arguably the sharpest and maybe the best zoom Canon has made so far.
 

+1

images are fantastic on th 70-200 IS ii- only thing I don't like about mine is it fits a little loose at the mount, which causes it to "jiggle" a very small amount if I'm walking...etc.  I've read online that many others fit this way as well, so I just try to ignore it.