Now there are people suggesting to get the FF body first. Believe me I have considered that many many times but I still believe investing in a good lens first is the wiser options. My EF lens is only the 50 f1.8 and 85 f1.8. My tammy 17-50 is an efs lens so it'll be not usable.
After browsing so many reviews on the net, I found this link and it made me think http://blog.kareldonk.com/canon-ef-50mm-f12-l-defective-by-design/ , let's wait for the II version to come out! To spend a large amount of money only to be disappointed is not acceptable. I'm not going for other L lens yet at the moment as my lens roadmap is to go with the L primes only.
85mm f1.2 is next in line, and so is the 135mm f2. The L zoom lens that I may consider is 17-40 f4 for travel, landscape and 70-200 IS II for wedding candid in a large hall).
Perhaps this 50mm f1.2 can be put on hold much longer until the ver II comes out.
The L primes-only roadmap used to get you the best IQ, but that was before the 24-70 II. The 24-70 II isn't perfect but it is a match against the 24L II and is better than the 35L (and is as good as the Sigma 35) and is a much better 50mm than any EF 50mm prime. The colors and rendering are prime-like. It does have more vignetting at f/2.8 than the primes (especially at 24mm), but for most, it is a trade worth making. The primes will give you better low light performance, but is that worth spending 1k or more to upgrade the performance of your 50 and/or 85 or would it make sense to spend that money elsewhere?
I'm bringing this up not because I think you should go zoom over primes, but to give you food for thought. It is better to think about these trades now before you start committing youself to some pretty expensive gear.
I'll join with you on that one. Sold off my 24L II, 35 L and 50 L once I got the 24-70, and you don't get a much bigger prime-nerd than me. It's THAT awesome. And at 50mm you have almost no vignetting with the 2470 II. The color and contrast are better than the 50 L.
I currently own just the 24-70 and 70-200 and I gotta say, with the ISO performance of the 1d X and the AF speed and corner-sharpness of those two zooms, I'm getting much better images and MUCH higher keeper rate and in focus images in any situation. I haven't missed one of my primes once, not once...
Hey man, that's a surprised that the zoom lens can replace all your 3 precious primes. I am a much comfortable shooter with just my 50mm at the moment but definitely will take the new 24-70 II into consideration once I'm active back in shooting weddings.
At the moment my priority is more towards bokeh quality for portraiture and IMO good L primes is the way to go!
I'm glad there's been some good, open discussion about options for the OP.
As has been written above, certainly the 24-70mm II is a great lens - with high IQ, good bokeh and generally good ratings for other properties. In some cases
it can do away with the need for a prime (or a few primes).
However I don't consider f/2.8 'fast glass'. For me f/1.4-f/2 = 'fast glass' and anything below f/1.4 = 'very fast glass'. I consider f/2.8 = 'medium speed glass'. f/3.5-f4 = ' medium slow glass' and anything slower than f/4 is 'slow glass'.
While others may define 'fast glass' differently eg some photographers might even say f/2.8 is 'awesomely, blazingly fast - incredible DOF control, etc' - that's fine, it's individual - and some people's shooting style doesn't require 'fast glass' (but f/2.8 = 'fast' enough for them).
However the fact
remains that a photo taken at f/1.4 when you really need it (especially for low light situations and/or ultra fine DOF control) is not going to be achieved by a f/2.8 lens, even the sharpest f/2.8 out there. And the resulting image is going to be VASTLY different in many cases. As neuro outlined in his post, Canon's 50mm f/1.2 L is suitable for some, but not for others.
So in that respect, having f/1.4 primes is very different than a f/2.8 zoom. Even with modern DSLRs (especially FF) being spectacular at managing high ISO, there is a huge difference between many photos taken at ISO12,800 at f/2.8 and a photo taken at ISO3200 at f/1.4 Having high ISO on tap can help in many respects, eg freezing action - but it can't decrease dof or impact bokeh positively.
That's why I'm particularly interested in Sigma's new 18-35mm f/1.8 zoom even though I'm very aware it's for APS-C only, and thus some of the benefits (dof control) are more limited compared to being a FF lens. But if more manufacturing of fast zooms can be produced (even with limited zoom ranges, eg a 24-35mm f/1.8 for FF, with great IQ) - that would be very welcome (a lens like this might be some time away, though). But full kudos to Sigma for their new 18-35mm f/1.8 lens - I've seen some good reviews and user reports of it already!
In addition, I'm also waiting for a new 50mm prime. Something between f/1.2 and f/2 is important for me, and AF needs to be spot on (preferably true USM) - 100% consistent AF (Sigma's 50mm isn't)- and great IQ wide open. IS highly preferred. None of the current 50mms from any manufacturer meet my criteria. In the meantime I keep waiting... and taking photos with my other lenses. I'm happy - and enjoying photography & life.