the focal range is equivalent to @40-170mm - you lose a bit of the wide angle advantage, but you get more telephoto, so it depends which end of the focal range you value the most as to whether that is a disadvantage or not.

Coming from the 17-55 (with 40D) I miss the 2.8 (but high-ISO performances of the 5D compensate quite a bit)

The bad:The short end of the zoom range is overly compressed such that it is a bit too easy and quick to move between 24mm-35mm

The zoom ring is a bit stiff but very smooth.

You get a little bit of everything, a wide angle at 24mm, 50-70 in-between for a "perfect portrait" view and a small bit of telephoto at 105mm.

I used this for star trial at night and a piece of dust scratched the lens a tiny bit

is a nice bit of extra insurance

Little bit heavy but manageable.

Images weren't impressionably sharp below f8.The lens is a tank that adds significant weight to the SLR, which detracts a bit from it's appeal as a walk-around lens.

My only negative is the out-of-focus performance, where the blur can be a bit nervous or grainy.

It's also a bit more compact than the 2.8

A bit heavy, but happy to to carry around as my everyday lens because the quality is fantastic!

The L lens bug has bitten

Nowadays, I shoot more travel, portraits, candids and landscapes and stopping action is a bit less critical

And, what is a real paradox, the 28-138 with its f/3.5 for 28mm, is actually a bit brighter than the 24-205 /f4

Usually I don't believe in filters, but I bought the B&M lens filter to protect it and also to better "moisture proof" the lens (I guess Canon recommends this).

I kind of regret not holding out a little longer cause I would have chose the white box