I am getting 70-200 f2.8 II for the same price as the following set 100 f2.8L, 135 f2 and 200 f2.8. I currently own a 60D and am planning to purchase the 7DII once it is available here in my country. What do you think is a better buy - the zoom or the set of primes? I love to shoot my kid (a very active toddler, her ballet recitals, outdoor sports, etc) and wildlife.
I own 3 of the 4 lenses you proposed - all but the 200 f/2.8, and have no intention of selling any of them. I probably use the 70-200 the most by a small margin, but my 100L Macro and 135L get lots of use every week. To me there is a place for all of them in my kit. Here are the reasons why I own each of them:
70-200 2.8 II - excellent IQ, versatility, reach (200mm is my longest lens at the moment)
135 f/2 - f/2 and size. This is my favorite portrait and low-light sports lens. Excellent bokeh wide open (which is where is use it 90% of the time.
100 f/2.8 Macro - Short minimum focal distance and macro capability for small stuff. Also reasonably small and light, a nice partner to my 35 IS or 24-70 II
I've never owned or used a 200 f/2.8, from what I've read its an excellent lens, but for me I don't see any advantages over the 70-200 other than size, weight and being less conspicuous. To me the other two primes bring more advantages to the table.
If I were forced to sell 2 of the 3, I would probably keep the 70-200, but I hope that's a decision I never have to make.