No one is saying that it is impossible to take good pictures using that lens (and since buying it it's become by far my most used lens). What I am saying is that it is a pointless limitation to build into a system that's biggest benefit is in the variety available. Just because a 24mm landscape looks nice doesn't mean a 15mm lens capturing the same scene wouldn't look better. And the benefit of buying a camera with a changeable lens is that you can make that decision for every shot.It's interesting to see that the general consensus seems to be that if you have an SLR you per default also need a plethora of lenses to go with it.
You don't need a different lens for every type of photography you do, even more so if you dont do photography for a living; that's just equipment whoring and reiterating what "professionals" recommend.
If you cant take a landscape photo with the 24-105 because it's not wide enough, or a portrait photo because it's too slow; well, sir, then in my opinion you need to work on your photographic skills because pretty much any lens would do the job. It's how you use it.
As a always on general usage lens I'm tempted to recommend a 50mm lens, and the use of your legs. It's amazing how much fun they are to use and they work quite well for most things. My personal work horse is the 24-70, but depending on budget and size requirements it might not be suitable.
For what it is worth, until relatively recently almost all my photography was produced using a 50mm - that is how I learned. I know how to make use of the limitations of a single lens as well as most. But now I am taking it more seriously I have a kit to ensure I don't miss out on the best shot due to a lack of equipment.
I really don't shoot at 14mm or 300mm very often. They're there for when I want them.
unless bellair is abit more forthcoming with some answers to questions posed by the TP members who have taken the time to post on this thread in the attempt to give some guidance with the question he posed. (which he has failed to do :bang