70-200Lf4 or 200L 2.8????

Ok so which would you say, speed versus versatility, any takers, i was all set for the f4 but then the whole speed thing, i have seen impressive pictures taken with 2.8 lenses at lowlight indoors, not all had use of IS.
Any pros cons, sample pics would be grateful.
Money is burning a hole in my pocket and i need direction to spend it.
Thanks, A.

I own both lenses. The f/4 isn't good for shooting in lower light conditions, although it's hard to beat it when the light is adequate. The 200L is marvelous, but really is a bit too long for indoor shooting. The 135L would probably be better. What are you planning to shoot, so we can better answer your question?

well i quite like the idea of indoor performances with out being in the front row, also there are a number of winter festivals near my home town, they are dusk-night parages with lanterns, and flame eaters etc, its quite fantastic.
Thanks Liza, i did wonder if i was being greedy wanting both, but as you have both i dont think i am, i guess they each serve their own purpose.
I have heard rave reviews about the f4, i guess an f4 now with the close of summer might be a more wise investement, its just that 200 2.8 seems a bargain, what do you make of the build quality?, i dont suppose you have a pic of both side by side, pretty please.
You know i am also looking at the 135mm, i like the idea of primes, less to go wrong, less expensive to replace they also make you think and work harder.
So if anyone else wants to help with my decision please post, sample pics would be great also!
Thanks , A.

f/4 won't do anyting indoors or low light like you describe, too well.

So consider the 135 2L, 200 2.8L, 85 1.8, or 100 2. All depends on how much reach you need.

The 85 and 100 are the least expensive ones of the 4.

I was also looking at 135mm 2.8 it also has that interesting soft focus switch!!
What the weight of the 200 2.8 l like.
Its funny how these lenses are similar in length but have completely differenct purposes, the collection will never stop.

'
From what i recall, the 135 SF, is a sharp little bugger, but its not strong in the low light/fast AF area.

well thats good news i have just seen the 135 2.8 for £189, cant wait woohoo!
Wow still no more takers on this thread o well, you 2 have been most helpful, thanks A.

For almost the same money ( a little bit more ) you could get the 70-200 f2.8 Sigma and have the best of both worlds. Personally, I opted for the 70-200 f4 over the 200 prime because I value the convenience of a zoom.

why isn't the sigma 70-200 2.8 mentioned?

edit: whoops it just has been lol

I have the 200 f2.8L and it's build quility is that of any L lens... like a tank. Although, it is not that heavy. I used it for my daughter's graduation which was indoors. I needed all of that f2.8 I could get and had many keepers. ( I'm still shooting with the 300D. ) I also have the 100-400L which I tried 1st with absolutely NO luck indoors. (No surprise, right?)

As long as you can zoom with your feet (or just stand still) the f2.8 is wonderful!!

I have most of the primes mentioned above and feel that the 135 f/2 would be the best choice with the 100mm f/2 running a close second. The 135 f/2.8SF is a fantastic lens, too, but isn't as good in low light as it's L counterpart.

F4L
Pros: smaller, cheaper, lighter
Con: smaller and slower, ugly looking hood.

F2.8L
pros: bigger, faster (allows for faster focusing and brighter viewfinder), shallower DOF
Cons: bigger and more expensive

Overall image quality, not much diff to make a big deal about.

2.8L IS!!!

The IS is a saver and for keeper of many shots, 2.8 aperture is a bonus.

The 200 f/2.8L will be too long for lowlight indoors, unless you have a very big 'indoors'.
I use my 80-200L on a 1D2 for live performance, and it's more at 80mm then at 200mm.
The f/4 zoom will be too slow. Have a look at Sigma's offering, or consider a used f/2.8 zoom (either 70-200 or 80-200)

I have just tried out my new f2.8 IS at the weekend in a typical British Summer - 1 minute Bright, next over cast, next bright, next pitch black - oh yes and the rain of course.

I was shotting at a local zoo, IS on and manual focus through thickish fencing - and was impressed with the amount of keeps that the lens assisted with.

My vote for the f2.8 for versatility