70-200 f2.8 or 17-40 + 70-200 f4

er, i'm in quite the tough position.. i have about $1300 burning in my wallet and need help deciding between these two combos

Combo #1
Canon 70-200 f2.8L
Damage: 1140

Combo #2
Canon 17-40 f4L
Canon 70-200 f4L
Damage: 1265

things to consider..
I love available light photography and shallow dofs and would be using a 70-200 mainly for portraits w/ a knocked out background.
I'll hopefully be shooting my first wedding in just over a month and plan on using the 28-105 as my main lens (this would change to the 17-40 if I got the combo #2)
and lastly.. I'm open to other lens suggestions

advice please

get the 2.8, why settle for anything less. think about how often will u use the wide angle compared to the telephoto...

I keep thinking I know the answer but you really are in quite a pickle.

I don't think you would want to shoot a wedding with the 17-40 so that is good news in terms of immediate need. Otherwise, can you get the 2.8 and then save a little more for the 17-40? Or vice versa?

Otherwise, if you can't or don't want to spend any more money than that, getting the two lenses would make your lens collection very well rounded out whereas just getting the telephoto leaves you with a rather ugly gap on the wide end if that is what you like. Do you have the kit lens (18-55)?

If you weren't shooting weddings, I would say 100% for the 70-200 F/4 and 17-40 F/4. But the wedding changes everything, go for the F/2.8

17-40 + 70-200 f4

and hire a lens for the wedding?

fomoz, I think I like the wider side of life..

ijohnson, I can (and will) be saving up for more lenses but want to make the most of this $1300. I do have a Sigma 18-50 3.5-5.6 right now so I have the wide kinda covered.

The wedding is going to take place outside at dawn. From what i've read so far, telephoto isn't that important for a wedding and that most people use the 24-70L. I will have two bodies though and put a 70-200 ( f/4 or f/2.8 ) on the spare. And I can rent lenses for the wedding but I'd rather use stuff I'm familiar with.

Get the 70-200 2.8. It is so much more versatile than the f/4 version. I had a f/4 version, i sold it to get the 2.8. It's alot better, i'm really happy with it. Happy shopping!!!

Well, don't know your money situation, but you could get the 70-200 F/4 and 17-40 F/4 now, and get a 24-70 or 17-55 IS later. The first two lenses are very nice, you will make the right choice no matter what

For portraits and indoors get the 2.8.

Also consider Sigma's 200/2.8 + 17-40.

Why not replace the 17-40 with a 10-22? 17mm isn't really all that wide on a XT.

OK, then get the 2.8 and wait a bit to get the 17-40. The Sigma will cover you until you can upgrade.

I plan on going full frame within the next couple years.. so I'm trying to avoid ef-s lenses. and I really don't want to go with sigma on the 70-200.

Do you really want to be shooting one day and find out that your shutter speed is half of what it could be? Do you really want to look at pictures and say, "Damn I wish that subject looked more isolated"?

If you can imagine these scenarios then go get the 2.8 and you will never kick yourself for it.

very true .. both scenarios would bother me. Especially missing shots because of slow shutter speeds.

If you don't mind using 3rd party lens, try Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 (~$400 after rebate) and Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (~$750). Total comes to $1150.

24-70mm f/2.8

I think this would be a more useable range for a wedding.

or get the

16-35 f/2.8 if you want to go wide

And you won't have to worry about going FF later.