To Pato: If we can afford it, 6D seems to be it. I can see what you mean about the EF Lenses. It was a concern for me also. That is why I have decided to go with the kit with 24-105... Roughly, the lens is around 1100 and the body is 2000. You do the math. In the mean time, you are getting a great camera and a great lens. I doubt I will be looking for any other lens other than a couple of much cheaper primes. So, at this point I am not even worrying about the EF lens prices. If the day comes to buy a EF lens that is really expensive, I will assume somehow I am making real good money from this hobby. At that point, the cost will be funded by the hobby and I'll be writing it off as a business expense.
Well, if there was an equivalent EF-S lens for every EF lens and just as good, then they would be just as expensive (or even more). For example, 24-105L beats the EF-S 17-55/2.8 in every way - build, DoF, IQ, focal range, while both are similar in size, weight and price. Take a look at EF 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM, the EF-S equivalent would be 17-85/2.2-3.5 IS USM, I doubt that it would be any smaller, better or cheaper. Actually, I'd prefer 6D+28-135/3.5-5.6 over 60D+17-55/2.8. So, I call this myth busted
It's busted as long as you're talking about comparing the EF-S lens on APS-C with the EF lens on FF. But for example, when both are used on the same APS-C body, the EF-S 17-55/2.8 delivers better IQ than the EF 24-105/4L, and (IMO) the former is a more useful focal range (24mm is 'normal' on APS-C meaning no wide angle therefore the 24-105 is not a 'general purpose zoom' covering wide to short tele).
Personally, I'd prefer the 60D+17-55 over the 6D+28-135 any day. But I'd take 6D+24-105 over both.
Well, of course I'm talking about EF on FF vs EF-S on APS-C. The myth claims that EF lenses are more expensive, because they are meant for FF. I'm just saying, that L lenses are more expensive for different reasons and if those same reasons were included in every EF-S lens, then there would be no big difference in price.