[mi100hael]

> the lens limits the camera

IMO it's just the opposite. It's L-quality glass, and the IS makes it a decent performer for low-light and video as well. With the exception of pixel peeping, I'd feel far more limited with a single fast prime in most situations.

[detaro]

I meant "weaker" purely from an optical perspective: the camera has a higher resolution than the lens can deliver, at which point there's the question if the money isn't better spent elsewhere, assuming you don't have other reasons to go for the expensive high-end body. Generally a characteristic of bundled lenses: they are flexible and (with the better cameras) high in quality, but generally they don't reach the body in quality. (Although looking at tests again, it seems better than I remember the one I borrowed a while back)

And e.g. if i were to switch to full-frame, I don't need the extra length of the 24-105 and would go for a sharper off-brand 24-70 2.8 (although there is a new revision of the 24-105 around the corner), since I'd want to cover longer ranges with additional lenses anyways. But that option wasn't available when the Mk3 came out, and I totally get why people choose the 24-105.