VaDimZH wrote in post #17635223
Why do you think about this set up: 16-35mm L f/4 for landscape and 135mm L f/2 for portrait, ?
Depends on you.
Personally, I'd rather have a Tamron 17-35 for landscape/general on the 5Dc, and a Samyang 85 F1.4 (or 100 F2 if you need autofocus) for portrait. Far less expensive, yet essentially as good in quality, to the point that only a pixel peeper or measurement junkie might detect a discernible difference at any large media value (not on web or small print at all), again for a much smaller price point, that points it way more in line with a 5Dc's value (ie, cost).
If someone were to give me the 16-35 F4L IS, I would appreciate it. But I won't buy one because I do not need F4 on a wide lens, and I don't need IS as that lens would virtually always be on a tripod for my uses, which leaves the focal range being the only last real point (sure it's optically quite good, but a lot of lenses are optically great and overlooked just from popularity). The old 17-40 F4L is nearly as good really, it's corners may not be it's strongest point at it's widest focal length, but it's not a new lens either. Mean while, an old Tamron 17-35 is about as good as the 17-40, and costs half. So it's all about what you value the most for your money. Best costs the most. The question just becomes how significantly different something has to be, in order to capture your attention enough to pay the premium for it.
As for the 135L, I personally have passed it up over and over because instead, I like the 200 F2.8L prime. Even better in my book. And if it's too long, I vastly prefer 85mm as my go-to for portrait, because it can function inside and outside very well, while 135 inside can be way too long, and outside requires a lot of working room, and I find if I have the working room for 135mm, then I likely have the working room for 200mm, so I'd rather go longer for the even flatter look it presents.
It's all preference! Try a few things and see what focal lengths really suit you.