Paid about $2,350.00 for mine just a little while after it came out. It's not cheap, and it could be more than you have to spend. But, at least, you get what you pay for. Only needed one copy; it worked perfectly well and was as sharp as I expected (very!) at all focal lengths. Like everyone else, the one thing that could be better is the weight/size, but that is probably asking the impossible; that's like wanting a roomy 6 passenger car that handled like a Ferarri, weighed 1200 pounds, went 200mph, got 50mpg and cost $2,350.00 - it's not going to happen because of the realities of physics and economics.
If you get this lens, you will use it a lot, unless you want to hike 40 miles or climb mountains with it. It is the single best zoom lens I've ever owned, period. And, it's probably better than all but the very highest end primes in the focal lengths it offers.
As an aside, the 70-200's "L" cousin, the current 24-70 f/2.8, is the lens that has had some documented QC issues with some lenses being markedly different than others (my "keeper" is the third one I tried out), but even the best samples pale by comparison to the optical quality of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS v2. Thank goodness there's a new v2 of the 24-70 coming soon to better match its stellar cousin, because so many of us have both these lenses in our basic camera kits.
As to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS v2, if you're looking for an excuse not to buy it, you won't find it from me.