Primes vs. Heavy Zooms vs. Lighter Ones

So I started with a great EF 70-200mm f/4 IS zoom and added Sigma 85mm f/1.4 and the EF 100mm f/2.8 macro as specialty lenses for portraits and macro photography. Then i happen to come across great deal on EF 200mm f/2.8 prime and I thought I was set. An additional fast prime for the long telephoto.

Then had the great fortune to get a EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS Mk I which I always wanted. I sold my f/4 to pay for it. And then considered unloading the 200mm prime since why would I need both any more?

Now if finding the great flexibility comes at huge weight disadvantage and I'm thinking of going back to the f/4 for travel flexibility with zooms and adding the great Ef 135mm f/2 prime with it. So I would use the lighter zoom for waking around but use fast primes when I really wanted narrow DOF or low light. And each of these primes is much smaller and lighter than the 70-200mm f/2.8. I find this is also true with the EF 24-105mm f/4 vs. the EF 24-70 f/2.8 which I've been comparing. The smaller lighter 24-105 f/4 combined with 50mm prime and the 85mm I have can give me the same trade-off in this range.

What would you do? Go with heaved faster f/2.8 zoom family and forgo the primes or go with the lighter f/4 zoom family and add in fast primes to get those special shots that need them? As you can see I'm stuck in the middle now but need to go one way or e other.

First I was a primefreak, I bought the best price/quality L's with highest ratings but also for the compactness in length and that they are black: 85 1.2L / 135 f2L / 200 2.8L

But after a while I realised I didn't use my 200 2.8L a lot (only some close-ups in basketball, but it was way too long, especially if you can't move). Then I also realised that the 135 f2L also was too long, had to take too much distance (even with a 5DII), on my previous 40D they were definely too long.

Then I was asked to do a reception, and saw the high-score of the 70-200 2.8L MKI (non IS), I realised that on longer focal lengths a zoom is best (if I would need more zoom I would have bought the 100-400L). The 70-200 2.8LII is too expensive.

As I like fast lenses with maximum f2.8 for great bokeh on portraits (and no hunting when having less light) I bought the 70-200 f2.8, which is a very sharp lens. The weight is not bad (I had the Sigma 50-500 in past ).

But I'm still a big fan of L primes for the bokeh and sharpness wide open, so I realised that the perfect combination is primes + zooms.

Now I have the 35 1.4L + 85 1.2L and 28-70 2.8L + 70-200 2.8L, my perfect combi.
Next month i'm on holiday, my "travel lenses" will be the compact 35 1.4L + 28-70 2.8L.

Hope my small experience review helped!