The 70-200 F4 is decent but still will require a tripod a lot of the time with no image stabilization. I have its cousin in my stable, the 70-200 F2.8L IS USM. One of my favorite lenses. Problem is the cost difference in the 2 is about $1000 US. What the more expensive one does is allows me to shoot at full focal length under lights at a stadium with no flash hand held.

Yeah, Rob, I was looking at the 2.8s but I couldn't find any, second hand, for under £800 and I certainly can't afford a new one, I simply don't have thousands that I can spend on photographic equipment. I don't have to make a living out of it so I can't justify that level of expense for something that's first and foremost, a hobby.

The f4 will do me just fine, I usually mount the camera on a tripod, anyway, especially in low-light conditions so it's not like it'll make a huge difference to the amount of kit I'm carrying. I don't tend to photograph stuff where IS is a must, anyway. Maybe in a few years when I've got a bit more spare cash I'll have another look at the 2.8 but, until then, the f4 will suffice.