whichever mid-range zoom i get, would become my walk around lens. Since i was hoping to take pictures of people mostly, i figure the IS wouldn't be as useful as say the small aperture. I do have a 600ex, but have had limited success in using it at bars as the ceilings are all kinds of colors. But this is just lack of experience, and something i plan to practice more with.
I'd save the primes for portraits and low light.
Right. I guess what I'm trying to say is that opening the aperture isn't always the way to go. If you open it up too much in the bar, yes it's dark, but most of your photo will be out of focus. If you shoot at f/2.8 at 70mm, I've seen shots where the nose is very sharp and ears are slightly blurred. If it's a general walkaround lens I'd still argue for the 24-105L. If you have the funds and know you only need up to 70mm, then yes of course, wait for the 24-70L II lens. On my FF the 24-105L is my most used zoom, behind the 70-200L. Even indoors I never shoot wider than f/4 because I'm a DOF guy, I like a good amount of DOF. Only time I don't care is portrait shots, which, with the 600EX-RT, is more than sufficient if you get to know how to use it to shoot at f/4. However, I use a prime anyways for portrait shots and wouldn't even use a zoom.
I still just think that you'd use the 24-105L more than the 24-70L, which is sort of specialized. You need to evaluate closely which shots you'll be taking, what DOF you want, what lighting, and where you'll be. With a 5D Mark III though, you can shoot at higher ISO values than before, so that will allow you to shoot at narrower apertures. Heck I shot a few at 12,800 this past week and was able to do NR and print them on photo paper and looked completely fine, and I was at f/6.3.