In the long term, what do you say, for an enthusiast on his way to PJism? I'm getting a 30D, with 17-55 f2.8 IS USM, along with a Sigma 70-200 f2.8, and everybody tells me the former is a mistake. I should go with a 16-35 2.8L, they say. Because everybody uses it+it is EF and FF upgradeable. I should say that i intend to upgrade in the future, of course. But not in the near future. I think i'll get an FF, and the 30D will be a backup. And that's where the 17-55 will be used, while the 70-200 will reside on the FF. Plus, who needs a REAL 16-35 on a FF, for people photography? What do you think? As a long term investment? The price difference between the 17-55 and the 16-35 is about $450, which is not peanuts, when you're already spending around $4K. Thanks.