Cory said:
With sports, stage performances and portraits might one do well by swapping out their 135 2.0 with the big zoom? I wonder if that might be the move with a full kit being a 16-35 4.0 IS, 40mm pancake lens and 70-200 2.8.
Sports and stage performances often benefit strongly from the flexibility of a zoom lens – players and performers move around, sometimes you want to isolate an individual, sometimes you want to frame a moment of action with multiple participants. For portraits, you generally have much more time and more control over the situation, so the flexibility is not as important. However, that very same control (e.g. placing your subjects where you want them, being able to move them relative to the background) means the extra stop of aperture at f/2 vs. f/2.8 is less important.
For a while, I had the 85/1.2L II, the 135/2L, and the 70-200/2.8L IS II. I found myself using the 70-200/2.8 routinely, and the only time I really 'needed' the 135/2 was for a set of individual headshots where I was traveling to Europe with all the required gear (flashes, light stands, backdrop, etc.). But, since I was shooting at f/11, the 70-300L would have done the job just fine.
When headed to a local event, it was hard to justify taking both lenses, and I'd invariably choose the 70-200/2.8. I've since sold the 135L.
The combination of the 16-35/4 IS, 40/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 would be a very versatile and functional kit (alhtough I generally prefer a standard zoom, e.g. 24-70). The 40/2.8 pancake is a great companion to the 70-200/2.8, it's so tiny I generally just tuck it in a pocket of the bag (even if that bag is just a toploader that is designed for camera+70-200) in case I need a standard FoV.