Hey everyone

Been ages since i've started a new thread here (or posted really either) but was after opinions.

Bought myself a 70-300 VR 4.5-5.6 recently, got it relatively cheap and was going on holidays and decided I really wanted a greater focal length than 70mm. Before that I was quite keen on 70-200 being a big fan of the 24-70 f2.8 I currently own, the optics are simply brilliant in my opinion.

Anyhow as someone who loves the optical quality of the 24-70 I am still considering getting the 70-200 and keeping the 70-300 just for travel photography (yes I have enough money to buy both...). But given that I already own the 70-300 now I wished to see what benefit others felt I would get buying a 70-200 as well?

I primarily use the 70-300 in the 70-200 focal length range anyhow, at that focal length the majority of situations I use it is in outdoor environments so the low-light aspects aren't so vital (compared to the primes and 24-70 that I do use indoors).

I also use the lens primarily stepped down, minimum f5.6 in most situations, but go to f4.5 where I want the shallower DOF. I do however quite like the DOF of f2.8 so this is a limitation I have to work with in the 70-300 but once again what I am shooting with it often benefits from f8-f11 anyhow so it is not so vital here either but would've been handy to have still.

According to comparisons by Thom against the 70-200 VR(1) the AF speed in daylight between the two is quite similar, how are others experiences with this?

Which leaves to the one remaining advantage I can think of, and its one of the reasons I love the 24-70, optics. Amazing detail / sharpness. The quality I can achieve with it is unmatched across any other zoom I own and so this is something that appeals to me, how do others feel the 70-300's optics compare to the 70-200 in this regard?