I have the 10-22 3.5-4.5 Canon, 17-50mm 2.8 Tamron, 24-105 L Canon, and 70-200 2.8 L Canon lenses (also a 30mm 1.4 Sigma and 120-400 Sigma) and if I'm doing a lot of walking around in a decently lit area and don't want to change lenses it's the 24-105mm I use. I don't see myself buying the 24-70mm 2.8 L Canon as good as I am sure it is. If I didn't already have the 10-22 and the 24-105 I would. Obviously I don't really need any filling in between those and my next purchases with either by the 50 or 85 1.2 L's or a 100-400 L Canon.

Finacee has the 17-55 2.8 EF-S canon, 100mm 2.8 Canon. Both those lenses are impressive for not being L glass. I think my Tamron is a better value if you aren't a professional as it is smaller, lighter and around 35% of the cost of the canon 17-55 EF-S. I've never actively done side-by-side comparisons of the 17-55 and 24-105 Canons... I'll have to give it a shot some day.