I have a great wide angle lens 17-40 f4L on my 40D
Next I'm looking for a good general use lens and have a couple options:
1) 24-105 f4L IS
2) 70-200 f4L IS
3) 70-200 f2.6L IS
The first two are around the same price, but the 70-200 f2.6l IS is a lot more $$ and bigger. Not sure its worth it. Any comments on the above combination would be appreciated.
OK here is what I would do.....
If money were an object ..... Canon EOS 70-200 f/2.8 L
If money were no object ..... Canon EOS 70-200 f/2.8 L IS
Personally I just ordered the 2.8L IS model. Previously I owned the 4.0 L, and found though it was 'faster' I would have been better off with the 2.8.
Go for SPEED - the 2.8 is available with and without the IS.
2.8L average retail $1,150
2.8L IS average retail $1,700
I blew the bank account in getting the 2.8L IS, but I am tired of buying one lens and wishing I bout another.
In the end, my camera bag will have a Canon EOS 5D, 17-40 f4 L, 70-200 f2.8 L IS ... I have some other special purpose lenses, but they are not carried around with me on a daily basis.
This will leave a gap between 40mm and 70mm, but if you get the 24-105 you will overlap between 24mm to 70mm, and be short on the long end.
This site has good info on the 70-200 lenses.
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/70-200
If you're going backpacking with a tripod, save your back and get the 70-200/4L. For studio portraits that will be lit by electronic flash, get the 70-200/2.8L (non-stabilized). For all-around high-performance, you definitely want the IS version of the 70-200/2.8L.