So, I've been shopping for my first DSLR for a long time now. And I thought I finally settled on the 40D with a good set of lenses, and that was it. But I made a very crucial mistake... I took the 50mm 1.4, and I tried it on the 40D. Then seconds later, I tried the same lens on the 5D. And... I completely messed up all the research and work I'd done for lenses. I've used a lot of 50s on a lot of film bodies (Canon 7, Nikon FM2, Nikon F2, Leica SL, Leica R6, just to name my favorite few), and I, for some reason, didn't mind the cropping on the 40D, until I tried it with the 5D. So I've got to rethink all my lenses. But, unfortunately, I don't have an infinite budget. With my 40D, my budget was about $3,000, and that was going to get me the body with a grip and four lenses. But, uh... the 5D is going to substitute a significant amount of those lenses (I may wait on the grip...), and even more so if I wait for the successor (it's the 6fps that drew me to the 40D in the first place). Now, I know I'm getting the 50mm 1.4 in any event (I'm also getting a Leica R to EF adapter to put my 50mm Summicron on the camera; I've seen some beautiful results). But because of my budget constraints, I think I need to slim it down to just three lenses. So now I need a decent walkaround lens, and telephoto. The 16-35 is way out of my budget, plus it's not very long, so that obvious choice is out. 100-400 would be an upgrade once I stop bleeding money over this. So, I was thinking I'd do the 24-70 f2.8, and the 70-300 IS. Does anybody have any experience with either of these lenses on a 5D? And does anybody dislike them? And if so, why? And which lenses of a similar price would be better? Thanks for listening to me ramble.