My real issue here is that the OP mainly does portraits. He already has the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS lens so I suggested the 24-70 f/2.8L II is pretty much sharper than any prime in that range. Then the "only primes" post. I didn't think my suggestion of spending $2299ish was out of line considering the total price of the primes he listed.
Why do some people feel as though to do well in photography, you must be a purist? It's like if you don't shoot in M mode, manual focus, and use an L prime, you're not doing it right.
Well, one might argue that sharpness isn't the most important feature of a portrait lens; that while the primes-only guy may just be some fool showing off, it may have less to do with purism than the fact that fast primes have a different look from sharp 2.8 zooms (though it's not clear why someone who mainly does portraits would be much interested in a 24mm or 35mm, L or otherwise - especially when he asked about 85...); and point out that Ls aren't required - there are even some cheap, fast, old(ish) manual 85mm lenses that make rather nice portrait lenses, even if unacceptably soft wide open to the sharpness police.
But one won't, because that cartoon is so damn good....