I'd like to buy a Canon 80 200 2.8L

I'd like to buy a Canon 80 200 2.8L because it's black,fast 2.8 and has great reviews or should I wait and get the 70 200 2.8 IS L AND SELL MY 70 200 f4 IS L? I have both a 5D and 30D body's.

well the 80-200 is no longer in production, so if you can't find one you might have to go with the 70-200.

I have seen 80-200Ls for sale now and then. It was my understanding that the newer lens has better IQ.

You can find the "Magic drainpipe" used in several places. You just have to look for it.
The only problem is that with it being such the older lens, that Canon doesn't support it anymore.
So if you have an issue with it you either have to find an external source to get it repaired, or try to replace it with another used lens.

I know the biggest downfall of this lens is it's discontinued and CANON no longer has replacement parts for repair.

Not digging the gaffer tape on white lens look?

If you need f/2.8 and are on a budget, it's a hard lens to beat. I owned one for 2.5 years, and now another POTN owns my former drainpipe. It has fantastic image quality, quick AF (not as fast as USM, but not too far behind), and was just a great lens. I actually sold mine along with my 135L for the 70-200 f/4 IS and the Sigma 150. The lighter weight and fantastic IS of the f/4 IS were better for my shooting than the bulk without IS of the 80-200L (I can hand hold the f/4 IS in FAR dimmer light, and the Sigma 150 is long enough to provide f/2.8 tlephoto needs when I really do need the extra stop. (I have the 100 f/2 to tke over the 135L duties, and it's a better length on 1.6x for me.) Over all I was very happy with the switch, So I can't say I'd want to go back,

That said, if you need f/2.8 in your zoom, the drainpipe is a great option. The f/4 IS is a bit sharper, but otherwise, the are very close optically.

Mine is probably 15+ years old. It works great and I don't use it nearly as often as I should. IQ is among the best of the Canon zooms. I've not heard of people upgrading to the newer versions for IQ purposes. The only reason I'd change is IS. I've got the 24 105 IS and I'm a believer in the benefits. Since you need 2.8, I'm assuming you need to shoot in low light situations. If you don't use a tripod, I'd save for the IS version.

If you need 2.8 mainly for the depth of field and not the speed, it's hard to go wrong with a 80-200 in good working condition.