If you have the 70-200 at the moment, one thing to remember is you will lose the extra magnification of the crop body if you move to a 5D. I have the 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200f4 and love all of the lenses. To be honest, I have hardly touched the 70-200 and it will typically be my most unused lens, as I am shooting mainly landscape stuff at the moment. I would love to shoot sport, but unfortunately getting close access to the sports that I like (I am a mad AFL supporter and enjoy golf) is difficult. Even if I could get access, I would need a larger piece of glass for it to be useful.

The 24-105 has shot more than 75% of the frames on my 5D MKII and I have been happy with it. The 17-40 has shot nearly all of the rest, with just a few shots on the longer lens. I think with any lens you will get some good or bad examples. I have been fairly lucky that I have not even had to adjust the calibration on any of my lenses, as they seem to be quite sharp on the focus point.

If image quality is the most important thing, a 5D MKII is excellent and the $ you save on the MK III may get you some better glass. While the 7D or 60D may be faster, the image quality will be superior on the full frame and the 5D II is no slouch in terms of speed. OK, it is not a sports shooters body, but for someone who is casually shooting animals etc it would be fine. One other factor with shooting moving subjects is how well you know your subject. Before I "quit" photography quite some time ago, I had a film body that could only shoot under 3FPS. I got some very nice shots at my footy club, because I knew when to press the shutter. It is a lot easier now, because rather than wasting a lot of film if you don't get it right, you just delete the poor images from the card.

Having said all of that, I kicked myself for buying the MKII not long before the MKIII came out, as you always long for the latest model!