16-35 II (traveling, street, some landscape, group or environmental portraits even)
70-200 2.8 IS II (everything...weddings, events, portrait, some closer wildlife)
135L (covers my portraits, some street stuff, events/stage stuff)
24 1.4L (not as good as the TS but it's more versatile. churches, markets, lowlight, astro)
100 Macro (L or not? IS can come in handy and its only a $240 difference, weather sealing is a selling point)
50 1.4 (better bokeh than the 1.8, which I'd keep as backup or lightweight setup)
I say ditch the 24 1.4, 50 1.4....get the Sigma 1.4 to replace BOTH..
and when Canon wakes up... and delivers the 35L II with perfection bokeh and sharp like Sigma...get it instead
I am torn about the
16-35 and 70-200 f2.8
I have both the 2.8 II and f4 I.S. ..
I feel my f2.8II ... is just too heavy...
I also have the 16-35 II ..a good lens but 14L so good...
I say get 14L, 24-70 II f2.8 ... keep 70-200 f4 I.S. (mine is the sharpest zoom I have EVER seen)
got to your 135 f2 if you want speed
14L, 24-70 f2.8 and 135/100L I.S macro ..... or 70-200 f4 I.S(smaller ...actually portable0
3 lenses cover soo much here....
put the Sigma in the middle of a prime kit
14L II, Sigma 35 f1.4 (skip Canon ...I sold mine) ... then 135 f2
just me looking at reducing my kit ...having most of these options ...and chosing what to give up...
I want all my stuff in one medium bag... 1/2 of a light travel backpack...holding clothes too....
travel light..get simple
carry 3-4 lenses
14L, 35 1.4, 24-70 f2.8 II, 135 -OR- 100 I.S macro
(yes the I.S. is useful.. get I.S on any longer than 70mm lens)
I am almost there