Ever since I've gone digital I've been frustrated with the choice in zoom lenses. I shoot with a 10D and a 1D (multiplier 1.6 and 1.3) and have a 28-70mm and a 70-200mm zoom.

The 70-200 was perfect for a full-frame film camera, but is too long for quick switching between headshots and body shots. The 28-70 is okay on the long side, but adds distortion on the short side if you're not careful. I try to keep in mind to never turn it wider than about 50mm, but I sometimes forget only to discover the distortion later.

I must not be the only one with this problem, yet camera makers keep making lenses based on full-frame thinking (the Canon EFS lenses go from wide to short tele, for example, same as the 28-70mm).

I want a lens that replicates the 70-200mm, so something like 40-125mm. Or I want an affordable full-frame camera, but I doubt that's the way DSLRs will go.

Agreed?

Nikon's 24-120VR confirms exactly what you're saying - it's a completely perfect walking around lens, and when shooting one or two people in a reasonably confined space, covers the entire range you'd ever want to use.  Unfortunately, as good of a job as the lens engineers did, it's still a 5x zoom range, and has some minor distortion problems at the short end, and some minor sharpness issues wide open at the long end.

I use it for shooting jazz musicians when I know that CD covers or small posters are likely to be the limit in size, and just make sure I stop down one or two stops.  (The VR helps with that.)  If I'm just wandering the streets or working on my long term documentary projects, I find that it covers 100% of what I want to shoot.

So I definitely agree.  I use my 28-70 a lot in studio space, and I find myself wanting a bit more on each end from time to time.