My 24-105L and 35L make up my key travel kit. I use the 24-105L throughout the day for landscapes, architecture, monuments, memory shots of the GF in exotic settings, etc. And I use the 35L in dark venues (restaurant/bars) in the evening. I'm becoming increasingly annoyed with the distortion on the wide end of the 24-105 but like the IS for shooting interiors of cathedrals, dungeons, cellars, and the like (which seem to pop up in my travels a fair amount). The 35L is great (at f2) for shooting my GF when were out for dinner or at a bar. However, my GF increasingly likes how she looks with my 85L so I'm using the 35L less (although the 85L is too long for practical restaurant/bar use and too heavy/bulky to pack around).
I'm wondering if I could get away with swapping both of these for the 24-70II and enjoy just the single lens for a day/evening in Rome (for example). The 24-70II would give me better subject isolation of my GF outdoors during the day at f2.8, less distortion on my wide scenery and architecture shots, and at f2.8 would probably offer reasonable shutter speeds in the evening. I guess the only thing I'd be giving up is the ability to shoot dark interiors hand-held, which as I say, is actually more common than you might expect. This is perhaps the biggest compromise.
If Canon offered a variant of the 24-70II with IS it would be a no brainier, but alas, it's not so easy.
I'm curious if anyone has switched from the 24-105 to the new 24-70II and really missed the IS (particularly for travel photography). Similarly, has anyone neglected/sold their 35L after adopting the new 24-70II?
On the other hand, maybe I should just stick with my trusty 24-105 and 35L... Dunno.