Amen to Bendel!
Bendel wrote in post #5466548
Since you want a walk around lens get the f4. The 2.8 would get very heavy after a long day out taking pictures.
The 70-200mm f/4L (series) lens is far lighter at 1.7 pounds than the 70-200mm f/2.8 (series) which, at 3.2 pounds, is almost twice the weight of the f/4L (series).
I have used the f/2.8L and will agree that it is an awesome lens. However, the extra weight is too much for me to enjoyably carry around.
I have the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens (I replaced my non-IS model) and cannot say enough good things about this fantastic lens. The IS allows me (and I am getting old and don't hold a camera as well as I used to) to shoot using 200mm at 1/60 second with full expectation that every shot will be sharp and at 1/30 second with a very respectable percentage of sharp images.
The f/4L IS lens is also $600 less expensive (B&H prices of today) than the f/2.8 IS model.
I use a combination of 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses on two bodies (I have a 30D and a 350D) for my day-to-day shooting duo. I have the short lens on a strap around my neck and the longer lens in a holster case at my side on another body. I have found this to be a very versatile combination which will cover most general photo opportunities.
You already have both the 30D and 350D but, what you need is a good mid-range zoom (unless you are satisfied with the results from the kit lens which I am not). The $600 savings between the f/4L IS and f/2.8L IS lenses would go a long way to offset the costs of a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens or would more than cover the very good 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron. Either of these great mid-range zooms would be an excellent choice as a partner for the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens.
However, whichever 70-200mm (series) lens that you opt for, I seriously suggest that you choose an IS model. I use the f/4L IS 3-4x more often than I ever used the non-IS version. The extra stop of the f/2.8L non-IS version would not (IMO) make up for the lack of IS.
The equivalent of 1/60 second at f/4 is 1/120 second at f/2.8. I simply cannot hand hold a 200mm lens (especially one as heavy as the f/2.8L) at 1/120 second with expectation that all my shots will be sharp and I could not get even a few sharp images using 1/60 second (equivalent of 1/30 second at f/4) at f/2.8.