NormanTheGr8 Loc: Racine, Wisconsin

As long as your spending $$ IF you can opt for the 2.8 in either lens give a serious look at the Tamron G2 lenses

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

You have what you need for landscapes and some low-light shooting. "Events" can be further subdivided into indoor or outdoor. For outdoor, the 70-200 would be more useful IMO. For indoor, including some people shots and portraits, I like my 85/1.8 prime on either a FF or APS-C body.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

It really depends on what you need to overcome. I would only get the 24-70 if you are unhappy with the results of using the 18-135 in that range. You really haven't told us what you find the shortcoming of that lens. The 70-200 does give you added "reach", but not much. Keep in mind that you don't have to change lenses when using the 18-135 if you stay in that range.

There are other choices to add to the focal lengths you have. I own a Tokina 11-20mm Pro f/2.8 for wider angle (good for landscapes, indoors) and a Tamron 150-600mm G2 for when you really need reach (wildlife, some sports, some events).

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Taking into account what you have and what you say you shoot, I am not sure either lens would be a good choice.

18-135mm IS USM is probably the kit lens you got with your 80D and that's a decent "walk around" lens with fast focus, close focus, helpful IS and very good image quality. A 24-70mm would serve little purpose, unless you need a larger aperture. But you already have a 50mm f/1.8 (STM?) and that can serve for shallow depth of field portrait effects as well as low light shooting purposes... Quite likely better than an f/4 or even an f/2.8 zoom.

And there really isn't much difference between 135mm and 200mm focal lengths. You aren't specific about the "events" you'll be shooting "from the sidelines", but assuming it's sporting events such as football, soccer, etc., if you "need more reach" you might want to look at a 70-300mm instead. Much less expensive than a 70-200mm f/4. There are also the original 70-200mm f/4 IS USM (which is virtually as good as the "II") and the non-IS version of that lens that's quite inexpensive, and might serve well.

If the "events" are indoor sports such as volleyball, hockey, basketball... you won't need as long a lens, but will almost certainly need a larger aperture... f/4 is very marginal. Even f/2.8 which is the best zooms offer can come up short in some venues.... Prime lenses such as your 50mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2 and 135mm f/2 are one to two stops faster than any zoom, two to three stops faster than the f/4 zoom you're lusting after. Fast primes are also smaller, lighter and less expensive. (By the way, if shooting indoors be sure to use the Flicker Free setting on your 80D... that solves a lot of the exposure problems that are all-too-common with much gym/arena lighting.)

Personally I shoot outdoor/sports events with 70-200mm on one camera... for the closer shots. And with either a 300mm or a 100-400mm on a second camera for the more distant shots. I've considered getting a 70-300mm instead and that would probably work. If I did, I'd get the L-series version with it's added durability and sealing for dust/weather resistance. But I make hard use of my gear.... 25,000 to 50,000 images a year at sporting events, often in dusty conditions and sometimes in wet weather.

AVOID the EF 75-300mm III.... it has lousy image quality between 200 and 300mm. But either the EF 70-300mm IS USM or the "II" version of it are quite good, a lot less expensive than the 70-200 IS II and give you more "reach" with 300mm. They are f/4-5.6 lenses.... a stop slower than the f/4 zoom at the long end, so require reasonably good light and/or high ISO in lower light conditions. But at under $500 they are 1/2 the cost and that would leave you some other options, such as the following.

You also mention landscape photography. For that I'd recommend the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM if you shoot it a lot... about $600. If this is only an occasional use, you might instead look at the less than half the price EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM lens, which is not as well built, somewhat plasticky, but smaller, lighter capable of equal image quality and even has IS. Whichever you get, be sure to also buy the separately sold lens hood and a good circular polarizer (B+W XS-Pro or F-Pro are a good value) for it. The 10-22mm uses 77mm filters, while the 10-18mm uses 67mm size (which it shares with your 18-135mm).

I do think you can get more bang for your buck and have a more versatile kit than if you instead buy the 70-200/4 II or any of the 24-70s. Those are great lenses, L-series that are "pro-quality" both in terms of image quality, build for durability and sealing for dust and weather resistance.... but quite possibly more than you need. You could add both a 10-18mm and a 70-300mm for less than the cost of either one of the L-series lenses. You won't be able to tell much or any difference in the quality of the images, between those lenses and the L-series.

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

Thanks for the info and for letting me know about "Flicker Free", wasn't aware of that feature.
A lot of decisions and I want to focus where I want to be in a few years.
Thanks again,
Jim

jeffrey8066

You also might want to think about buying used lens from good dealers. You save some money and get quality glass for a little less money. May to the point that you can get both and cover the focal range you discribed.

MidnightManiac

Own both lenses. Love them both for different reasons. Actually own two 70-200 lenses, one Canon f4 L and a Tamrom 70-200 f2.8. Love the f4 for outdoor sports primarily summer baseball, at times for a bit extra reach use a 1.4x extender, gives me that bit of extra reach when the ball is going to the outfield with little if any quality loss. I use the Tamron for indoor hockey and concerts gives me great results. Indoor I use my Sigma 24-70 f2.8 for family events and also for indoor sports when I don't need the extra reach, ie: under a basket during a basketball game. Tuff decision but if you're look for a great all around lens the 24-70 would be my choice. If it's sport or a bit extra reach the Canon 70-200 f4 L. That is my favorite lens.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

If you cannot make up your mind, the older Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 or the new Tokina 50-135mm f2.8 are great APS only lenses ! - saves $$$ too !

..