Thanks. That 24-120 would never see the light of day if I had those other three.
I added the 85/1.4 earlier. I don't know if I should add the 14-24/2.8, 17-35/2.8, 16-35/4 or 24/1.4 on the wide side. This is where Canon made it easier for me with the 16-35/2.8 II.
14-24 - heavy and less useful zoom range.
17-35 - Older, not as sharp as the other lenses
16-35 - It's an f/4
24/1.4 - 1.4 makes up for not being a zoom but it's the most expensive of the bunch.
hahaha exactly why I did not mention it on my recommendation
do you shoot landscape much? the 16-35mm f/4 VR is pretty good if landscape is what you wanna do... very nice to have VR for low low light, just don't expect to get any bokeh out of it hehe
ok since you bought the 85mm f/1.4G already, now you only have $3500 on your budget? if you get the 70-200mm VRII for $2,400, you will be left with $1,100... enough to get yourself either a 16-35mm f/4 or uhhmmm 17-35mm.
I think the 17-35mm performs just like any of their pro grade lenses