Why I would never buy a mid-range zoom

I was asked yesterday whether I had ever used a Canon 24-70mm f2.8 L lens, which I had. The first model had the outrageous tenacity to zoom outward when you wanted to go to a wider focal range, meaning you might actually smack someone in the face with your glass if you were taking a wide portrait. Not really, but really. It looked ridiculous. The new version is modified, so that problem doesn't exist. Other than that, it was what I, and many others, have said about that particular lens:

"It's a good walk-around lens."
Probably 90% of people I know have said the same thing.

This is half of the reason why I would never buy that lens, the other's being:

1) What is the point of mid-range?
2) Zooms in general are less sharp, clunky, and overly expensive.
3) The new version costs over $2,000.
4) The new version costs over $2,000.
5) The new version costs over $2,000.

Ok, great. But let's be real about this. A $2,000 mid-range zoom that offers you the ability to go from a very nice, slightly distorted wide length (24mm) to a...portrait-decent, slightly tight, awkward length (70mm). All at a moderately-fast aperture (f2.8) that can get you a decent DOF and low-light performance. 24mm is great, but what is 70mm? What is 60mm? Most people already have a 50mm, so what is that buying you? 35mm? 40mm? 53.25mm? Nah, forget it.

First off, it's a good "walk-around lens", meaning that you are walking around and you see a cool building, so you take a wide shot. Then you see a bird and shoot tight. Then you see a can on the ground and shoot...something. All because you have a zoom, you're outside, and you don't feel like switching lenses, which takes 40 seconds, or you don't have any other glass at all, or you don't feel like moving your feet.

If that's the case then you're either a tourist, lazy, a lazy tourist, or a soccer mom. These people should buy that lens. Any other working photographer should probably be content to move closer to their subject or switch lenses. I think. Or they would have two bodies, which is better and maybe cheaper.

Does that mean I think all zooms are dumb? Absolutely not. Far from it. Zooms are great WHEN THEY CAN GET YOU CLOSE TO SOMETHING YOU ARE NOT PHYSICALLY ABLE TO GET CLOSE TO. Sports, conferences, talks, some portraits, other things with limits. That's why a 70-200mm is absolutely essential. Great for sports. Great for talks. Great for concerts. Great for press conferences, all things where you cannot get close to the actual subject by moving your feet and shooting wide, which is (believe it or not) the trend. More information is good. Close is good. Wide is good.

Wide is good? Yes. Very, very wide is also good...sometimes. Which is why a 16-35mm wide angle zoom would be a better bet than a mid-range, because it can get you more information THE CLOSER YOU ARE TO THE SUBJECT which is what most good photography is all about. Getting close. What does this mean? 16-35mm, good. 70-200mm, good. 24-70mm? Nah.

Did I mention it was $2,000?

Price is a point of contention here, because it's not the most worthless lens to have, obviously. It's just gear, and if you're good you'll still get good stuff with it. Some people do a double of having two bodies, one with a 24-70mm f2.8 and the other with a 70-200mm f2.8. Clever, but I'd prefer the extra f-stops. $2,000 could get you:

a) a 70-200mm f2.8 and a 28mm f1.8
b) a used 70-200mm f2.8, one 28mm f1.8, and a 50mm f1.4.

Why these lenses? I dunno, just saying, it's what I know because it's what I own. 28mm f1.8 USM has been an incredible lens for me. It's sharp, extremely fast, and wide enough without any noticeable distortion (which I have never been a fan of). It runs circles around the 28mm f2.8 (which is half the price, non-USM: so very loud) and is a third/fourth of the price of the next level, the incredible 24mm f1.4 L. To me, the extra 4mm and 1/3 of a stop or whatever it is simply wasn't worth the extra grand and a half (or the extra 70-200mm, think about your use-level here). It's a beauty, but it's $1,800 bucks. I got my first 28mm f1.8 for $360 off craigslist. So basically I could have bought five more for the price of a that L series glass (which is great and all...). Five more. 5.

So now I own:
One used 70-200mm f2.8 ($1,000 off a guy who bought it to take pictures of his kids, and didn't).
One 28mm f1.8 ($460, new because I sold the first one to Diego Flores back when I thought "wide was dumb". Dumb.)
One used 50mm f1.4 ($340, used and clean, has been going great for 3 years).
One 40mm f2.8 ($149.00, new, contrasty, pancake, great for having a third body when shooting football and..refreshing).

Subtotal: $2,049.00.

Or I could have one zoomy L series glass that I can walk around with. I've had to shoot some piano concerts in rooms that might as well have been lit by candles and the whites of people's eyes. Can't use flash or I'll ruin the show and it wont look as warm and cosy. An aperture of 2.8 just can't hack it sometimes. f1.8? Sure. f1.4? Yeah. All made possible by having a selection and being content to move around.

I'm not saying this to discourage people that already have that lens, which has come in kits and stuff. But if I had to shell out to buy it myself, I would take 4 lenses over one, especially one that could only get me as close to something that I might as well walk towards. Proof? I don't have any. But I GUARANTEE that if I gave you two full-frame cameras:

one with a 24mm
one with a "70mm"

you would, being a photographer, probably never use the 70mm body for everyday work, being photojournalistic, whatever. And if you did need to use 70mm, you'd probably need to use 100mm, or 120mm, or 200mm, meaning a telephoto is much more practical, OF COURSE ASSUMING THAT YOU HAVE $2,000 TO SPEND AND YOU WANT TO GET SOME GLASS TO START YOUR JOURNEY WITH, which is effectively what I'm saying.

Of course, if you have a crop body, then that's another story and in my experience, even though the mantra (a good one) that you SHOULD ALWAYS INVEST IN GLASS OVER A BODY is one to heed, I've realized that having a camera body you don't like is rough. You should probably start there.

I guess.