I have 35L 50L,135L,200L trying to get 1-2 new lens to travel
1.wish list/ (16-35f2.8 or f4) (24-70 f2.8II) (70-200mm f2.8 or 70-200mm f4)
2.would you sell 35L or 200L when u get 16-35 or 70-200?
3.which 3 lens would u take to travel? and street photography
advice anyone? thanks ^^
Like others posted already, a 24-70/2.8 plus 70-200/2.8 would cover most of your needs when you travel. I use the 70-200/2.8 much in the street (besides an EF 300/4), because I prefer the subject isolation only a tele can deliver, plus I like it much as portrait lens (besides the king of bokeh, my beloved EF 85/1.2). The standard zoom is less important for me personally, but that's a matter of taste.
You could consider the new Tamron lenses for both ranges, since they are much more affordable and deliver overall good IQ, plus the Tamron 24-70/2.8 has a quite good IS (VR). But I have this Tammy standard zoom and can tell you that I have a lot of out-of-focus losses with my 5D3 (I have microadjusted this lens carefully). It's a typical 3rd party lens AF issue, since Sigma, Tamron & Co. have to re-engineer the AF parameters of Canon's and Nikon's systems. I do not know which DSLR you have but my impression is that the Tammys in particular do not co-operate well with Canon's pro AF system (I've tested yesterday the new Tamron 150-600 and had much more AF flaws with my 5D3 than with my 7D). So if you prefer to shoot action, stick better with Canon's native system.
I am really happy about the overall performance of my EF 70-200/2.8 II, AF nearly always hits the target. If you decide to get this fantastic tele-zoom, you won't regret any penny of this of course huge investment. Don't consider the older versions of this model, they are too soft wide open (in this case I'd really prefer the new Tammy 70-200/2.8 ). You could add later Canon's 1.4 TC, the Mark III version performs suprisingly well with this lens.
I also have the EF 70-200/4 L IS USM, if you consider it take the newer IS version because it is sharper than the non IS version. The small 70-200 is a nice light traveling lens with good IQ and AF performance but does not offer as much freedom of composition as the 2.8. If you are used to Canon's superfast 200L I think it would be too much a step backwards for you.
I'd personally sell the 35L, never the 200L. But I prefer to live more on the tele side of life
. If budget is tight, I'd go for a 70-200/2.8 II first and maybe considering to sell the 135L, even this is a fantastic lens, to gain more flexibility. Of course you lose some fastness and the quality of the zoom's bokeh does not meet the 135L's but is overall quite good.