Upload & Sell: Off
I have the 70-200 2.8 II and the 70-300L, and the 70-300 is a lot shorter, less bulky, and significantly lighter. It's VERY sharp, and the IS is about as good as it gets. I've never owned the f/4 version, but now I only use the 2.8 when I have to have such a large aperture...Three weeks in Wyoming and Colorado, both lenses with me, and I never even mounted the 70-200; 75% of all my frames were from the 70-300L.
I highly recommend it.
I also have the 70-200/2,8 version. And I agree with you. Both in the IQ and sharpness. And in the less bulky comment