I do videography as my main practice. I would most definitely get the 70-200 2.8 II is over the 4.0.. The "is" on the f/4 doesn't help video in dark situations like it does with photography. I have 2.8 my partner has 4.0 and he's always want to open up more. if you have the money then the 2.8.
I also would opt for the the 24-70 over the 16-35. Better all around lens unless you either want the is and extra reach on the 24-105 f/4.0 or do a lot of landscape the 16-35.
1. 24-70 2.8 over 16-35 2.8 because there are more situations the 24-70 would be used - fewer lens changes
2. 24-70 2.8 over 24-105 f/4 is in the chance of being in darker areas.. and shallow dof
3. 24-105 4.0 is over 24-70 2.8 if your doing a lot of handheld/monopod video
4. 16-35 2.8 if you absolutely need 8mm wider than the 16-35
50 1.4, or 1.2 although i love my 1.8
70-200mm 2.8 is ii
I would wait for the new 24-70 mrk II. I bought 3 copies in the past, NONE of them gave me the sharpness that I'm looking for.
100% agreed with 50mm f1.4. tack sharp on my 5D III
Yes. money not being an issue wait for the new one. or buy 24-70 used and sell when new one comes out.
2x 5D mkiii, 7D, 60D, T2i, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Bower 14mm f/2.8, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, 24mm L f/1.4 ii, Sigma 35mm ART f/1.4, 24-105mm L f/4.0 IS, 50mm f/1.8 ii, 85mm L f/1.2 ii, 100mm L Macro f/2.8 IS, 135mm L f2.0 75-300mm f/4-5.6, 70-200mm L f/2.8, Sigma 70-200mm OS f/2.8. StockhamMedia.com