Replace 55-250 & 50-135 2.8 with 70-200 F4is?

I like the 70-300L for its compact size and am looking forward to traveling with it and the 17-55 as my two lenses (with maybe the 28/1.8 thrown into the bag as well). I was looking at the 70-200/4 but concluded the extra size wasn't going to work for me. The 200/4 has the advantage of being lighter, though.

After paging through the sample photo threads of all these lenses, it's obvious that all of the L's in this range can produce amazing images. The 2.8's are mindboggling (but vvvvery expensive), but I don't think there's a dud in the lineup.

Thanks all for the responses. I appreciate the input, and I've got a lot to consider. I thInk I need to determine the focal length range most important and go from there. At least the good news is this is not anything I need to rush into.

One more point .. If it matters to your type of work consider the additional background blur bokeh the f/2.8 can give over the f/4.

I used a 70-200 f/4 IS and 17-55 f/2.8 IS combo for years on a 7D, and before that, on a 40D and Rebel XT. The 70-200 is a terrific lens, and I liked it so much that I kept it after adding a 100-400L for wildlife. The 70-200 gets packed when I do not need the reach, want to travel light, or need something a little faster.

I am sure the 70-300L is a great lens, too, especially if you want more reach and can live with the variable aperture. Since I have the 100-400 for the reach, I prefer the 70-200 f/4 over the 70-300L. If I were to scale back to a single telephoto, though, the 70-300L would be very attractive.