I won't give up my Sigma 85 (selling the canon 85). 135L is a different story as it's a f2 which is too close to the mk2 f2.8.
I think 70-200 MK II will replace all your primes except the 100L for macro.
um...I am planning to replace my 135L only and use the 70-200 mkII mainly for ~100mm - 200mm.
I think 35L will give you something different, something you won't get from the 24-105L.
Good you mention the 24-105. It doesn't get use much at all and I am so close to selling it.
The only reason I am keeping it is i guess it's a good general walkaround when it's needed...
And I certainly agree that either 24 or 35L will give me something different and fresh.
personally I like 35, it's wide enough for indoor and full body environmental portrait, long enough to have no distortion for upper body portrait.
But that's the whole point of discussion. Some people say 35L gives such a standard look that it's kind of boring, whereas 24L is distinctive and has the pop factor.
I don't shoot landscape. If I do, I think I would rather get a 17-40L instead of 24L because I will shoot mostly f8 and above.
Well if you look at the 24L sample photo thread, it's main use isn't really landscape but portrait.
