Longer lens - so hard to decide!

I'm currently in a dilemma with my camera bag... maybe you guys can help me out with some pros cons - even though this is yet another "which lens" topic...

I currently have these lenses that I use on my 5D:
17-40, 28 1.8, 50 1.8, 100mm macro.

I'd like to add something medium longer to, that is a bit more handholdable than my 100mm macro. Shooting with a shallow depth of field is important to me, so at longer ranges (~135mm and up) I'd like to have at least f/4.

My current options are these (and money is an option, I'd like to stay under ~1000-1100 euros):

70-200 F/4 IS (new or used)
Pros:
- Freakishly sharp
- Great IS
- lightweight
- relatively compact
Cons:
- F/4
- bokeh not as good as the 2.8 @ f/4

70-200 f/2.8 IS (used Mk1 version)
Pros:
- Quite sharp
- 2.8 @ 200mm = lovely isolation
- 2.8 combined with IS makes great low light
- will take a 1.4 pretty well
Cons:
- sometimes "meh" at 200mm wide open.
- heavy & bulky - not as likely to bring this on holiday

Combo of 85 f/1.8 + 200 f/2.8L (probably both used)
Pros:
- Light, two lenses means you don't always have to bring both
- Compact if you bring one
- Great options for shallow DoF
Cons
- Less versatile
- Need to bring both for the same versatility as a 70-200
- No IS.

Not to make a decision, but I'd love to hear some more opinions on this

Thanks in advance.

I basically did your #3. I went with the 200mm 2.8 and the 100mm 2.0 (similar to the 85mm). I later added the 70-200mm f/4, but I use the 200mm 2.8 far more often. The heavy white 70-200 2.8 version one was never a consideration. Also, the black beauty (200mm 2.8) does better with the 1.4 than the version one zoom, and its sharper wide open than the zoom as well. The prime is also slightly sharper than the excellent f/4 version of the zoom.

Only you know how much you need the versatility of a zoom. If you really need one, I'd go with the sharper lighter f4 version. But if you like primes and want outstanding IQ in a small light black lens, the 200mm 2.8 is highly recommended!

nightcat wrote in post #12226483
Only you know how much you need the versatility of a zoom. If you really need one, I'd go with the sharper lighter f4 version. But if you like primes and want outstanding IQ in a small light black lens, the 200mm 2.8 is highly recommended!

Well, I still have my 40D + 50-135, which acts more or less like a 80-200 f/4.5 (in DoF, in light it's still f/2.8 of course).
I'm very tempted to get the two primes, also because someone is selling both and I think I might get a decent deal when I buy both.
On the other hand, the results I've seen in poor light from the 70-200 f/2.8 IS have been fantastic, sharp handheld images at 200mm even close to 1/30th. A 200 2.8L won't do that for me (unless I monopod / brace).

The 85 1.8 + 70-200 f/4 IS don't really rule eachother out though, so even that is a choice.

EF 70-200/4 L IS lens is fantastic and in a small package. Get it and maybe wait a while before you decide about the next lens.

gasrocks wrote in post #12226851
EF 70-200/4 L IS lens is fantastic and in a small package. Get it and maybe wait a while before you decide about the next lens.

Ha, how unlike you to not suggest 3 primes
But I agree, the 100mm macro could fulfill that function for now. I guess IS will be more useful than 1 1/3 stop faster at a slightly shorter lens. I think I'd prefer the 100mm macro to the 85 when working smaller than f/2.8 anyway.

What about a 135f2? Great combo on a 5d. And you could add a 1.4tc for a little more reach if you need it.

Why not consider the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS?

Its considered to be second only to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II in terms of optics...Quite a good lens honestly, I'd have it over a Mark 1 IS any day and it can be had brand spanking new for the same price...

I never got the appeal of a 70-200 f/4 personally..

There are so many choices between 100-400mm it can be a tough choice. I own the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 and have been very pleased with the performance/cost ratio