the tammy statements here are a bit silly, unless one pixelpeeps test targets and other such useless in real life stuff. My 24-70 does everything I could ever want and has IS which is important to me.
I'd also get the 70-200 f4 unless you have a good reason for 2.8. Both are great lenses, but the f4 is a LOT smaller and lighter, I'd have to get yet an other bag if I'd have the 2.8. And I hardly ever even shoot at f4. Portrait, fashion, etc, the 2.8 can come in handy, but I use the 24-70 or primes for that.
I found the 2.8 just to be too big and heavy for travel and even walk around all day. And those extra stops certainly aren't worth the money to me, I'd hardly go that wide open. It might help in lower light for birding etc too, since the AF will get more light, I don't shoot wildlife much, so I never ran into that issue.
Think about what you want to do with your gear, if the 2.8 gives you something aside of 'looks cooler/bigger' then get it, otherwise buy something else nice or go out for a very fancy dinner or a mini vacation with the extra cash