ok so i did it and bought into FF... now i need a good standard zoom

[michi]

I bought a refurbished 24-70 2.8 L Mark 1 from Canon when they had a discount, it was under $1,000.  I also have a 24-105.  I prefer the 24-70, I feel it has nicer colors and feel of the resulting images.  It is a heavy, bulky brick though.

[smithy]

I thought about buying a kit but i got a very good deal for a 2 month old 6D body.
But now i need a good standard zoom for my new FF camera.
So what is the best choice for best quality at the short end?
1000 euro maximum.

You want the best quality standard zoom? A few posts have suggested a 24-70 f/2.8 series-1. Right zoom range....wrong lens. While good copies of this lens are known to exist, most of them are mongrels. I had five over a number of years. Avoid them. They highly likely to disappoint.

You've got yourself a great body, so back it up with a truly phenomenal lens, the new 24-70 f/2.8II. Everything positive you have read about this lens is true. As I mentioned on another thread, photographers including myself are disposing of L primes in the 24-70 zoom range...the new zoom makes them obsolete. It's just that good.

-PW

But where can you get one for less than 1000 Euros?

[RC]

Pick up a used 24-105 and keep the rest for a 17-40...

This is a good plan, 24-105 for your standard zoom (used or new) and a 17-40 (stopped down) for landscapes.  You can probably get by just fine with 24mm for landscapes now and add a wider lens latter.  Get a CPL, both lens take a 77mm filter which makes it nice.

[sdsr]

If you need wider than 24mm, get the 17-40 f/4.  If you don't, but need faster than f/4, get the Tamron 24-70.  Otherwise I would, like so many others have done, recommend the 24-105.  User experience around here suggests there's some variation among them in terms of sharpness.  I can't comment on that - all I can say is that the two I've tried (rented one, then bought one) are both sharp; both perform superbly even in very low light on FF (I have 5DII & 6D; at least with non-moving things, IS more than makes up for the difference between f/4 and f/2.; 105 is much more useful than 70; so I think it's a bargain for what it is, even when not acquired as part of a kit. 

(I've also tried two copies of the Tamron 24-70; I rented one, then bought one, but neither was any sharper than my 24-105, and the results I got in low light with it at f/2.8 or otherwise weren't any better than I get with my 24-105 at f/4 or otherwise.  So although it's clearly a very good lens, I returned it because it added nothing useful to me.)

PS - it's not clear why you found Mt Spokane's comments unhelpful - seems to me they were spot on.

[transpo1]

24-105 all the way. It's a great lens.

[StepBack]

Well first congrats on the ff. Should be great for landscapes to capture the color and lighting nuances. I like taking close ups of flowers in gardens whether at conservatories or at home, a park whatever. Then there's landscape like the Grand Canyons or the Swiss Alps, beaches, wetlands and the ocean. So decide what it is you want to capture in landscape. Then match the lens to your needs. I use a 24-70L and sometimes the 70-200L. If I were doing it all over again I'd weigh well the weight of the lens I"m comfortable carrying. If I wanted an all around lens I guess the 70-200 is terrific. But instead of a 24-70 I would look for a wide angle with a large aperture. You may not have such a need right now. The 24-105 is also very good. Remember u have to carry these suckers around perhaps all day maybe on long hikes. Good luck.