I personally prefer to use ext4 on my usb flash drives, along with a FAT partition to allow file sharing with other OS's. I'd probably use the same for hard drives, but I do most of my linux work on flash, and that's what my comments here are directed towards. In my opinion, ext4 is faster than ext2 and since the default behaviour is to only journal metadata (rather than mirroring all data), you don't lose vast amounts of space to the journal but you have a little insurance in case of filesystem corruption (not that I've ever experienced a problem with ext2!). Another concern would be read/write cycles, as journaling will cause more wear on your drive. I'm not overly worried about that for three reasons: first, most modern drives can handle lots and lots of read/write cycles - I'm more likely to lose a drive than wear it out; second, I don't usually save changes so I mostly read data and don't save to the drive other than when I'm purposefully saving my work; third, flash media is getting cheaper and cheaper so if a drive wears out I can easily replace it--in fact, I'll probably always buy a new drive to increase storage capacity before I ever wear one out -- my 16gb drive is chock full ATM, just like my 8gb was before I got that, and my 4gb before the 8gb!.
You'll likely get different answers from every person who responds to you on this one

Some people love NTFS, some love XFS, some ext2, etc. If they were further along in development, I'd probably be using btrfs (fastest one I've tested but didn't have reliable repair tools last time I played with it), nilfs2 (crazy fun restore points but also not a good set of tools) or f2fs. Lots of people probably never change from FAT and that's just fine, too. Try a few out and see what you think.