Christmas is coming...

Christmas is coming the Goose is getting fat. I'm saving for a new lens, (the kids were sold, along with a kidney to pay for a 5D MKii and 24 - 105)

I am now interested in a longer reach zoom, with the capability of accepting an extender. (old age and poor eyesight)

So, 70 - 200 F2.8 Non IS

OR

70 200 F4 IS

Pricewise there is not a vast amount between them (in the UK)
The F4 IS is approx £950, and the F2.8 non IS is about £1020.

I am interested in shooting - Wildlife, landscape, Race cars/Trains (old ones) Aircraft.

IS is a nice to have but I cannot justify the F2.8 IS version. I know adding teleconverters drops F stops but on a 2X the F.28 would go F5.6 and the F4 would go F8.
I do have a good tripod, and an excellent monopod and head.

Any thoughts, stories, pic examples?
Thanks, Rob.

I am almost 60 and not as steady as I once was. I need IS (OS, VR, VC) at 200mm. You already have the 70-105 range covered, so you will be paying all that money for 105-200mm. I wouldn't do that.

For wildlife, longer would be better. Perhaps the 100-400, or 70-300L? Or Tamron 70-300 VC?

There is no such thing as too long or too much light for wildlife. IMHO it's really a question between the 70-300L or the 100-400L. Given the 70-300L has a 4 stop IS, it's roughly a f/1.4 at the long end in terms of being able to hold it steady. Of course, IS won't stop motion of your subject or create the same background blur, but it will make 300mm incredibly hand holdable. The 100-400L is also a very nice choice, only a 2 stop IS, but just as hand holdable as the 70-200 2.8. Although the 100-400L does really start creeping the budget.