omg... what have I done?

Tommydigi wrote in post #15384936
I got my 24 to complement my 50. I think 35 is a nice in between but I would never want 35 as my widest lens. I purposely go with the 2 formats (APS-C/Full frame) to sort of give me the 24/35 50/80 combo. There is a time I could use any and all focal lengths but I guess that's what a zoom is for.

I agree, I wouldn't want 35 to be my widest either. But I know I eventually want to get a 24 TS-E and a 24-70, so I'll have 24mm covered with those.

Yep I too am considering 24-70, 35, 85. Before I do anything I will shoot a lot with my 24 and 50 on my 60D to see how I like. I love the 24L, IMO its my best lens but its such a specialty it gets little use on full frame. 24 would seem to make more sense in a zoom and since the new 24-70 is supposed to be so good at 24 it's probably a sensible move.

In some ways the 85L is just as much a specialty lens because its big, heavy with slow autofocus not to mention very expensive. I have been planning on getting a 135 instead.

Tommydigi wrote in post #15385108
Yep I too am considering 24-70, 35, 85. Before I do anything I will shoot a lot with my 24 and 50 on my 60D to see how I like. I love the 24L, IMO its my best lens but its such a specialty it gets little use on full frame. 24 would seem to make more sense in a zoom and since the new 24-70 is supposed to be so good at 24 it's probably a sensible move.

In some ways the 85L is just as much a specialty lens because its big, heavy with slow autofocus not to mention very expensive. I have been planning on getting a 135 instead.

Well I use the 85/135's exclusively for portraits. I work at a deliberate pace so the difference in AF performance isn't really a concern for me. I can see how it would be for portraits of pets and children, though. I considered keeping the 135 and getting an 85 1.8, an option that would have been cheaper still than the 85 1.2, but the notion of using only two primes is very appealing to me and worth the extra cost.

You will enjoy the 35mm / 85mm combo, I know I sure do! Own the Sigma 35 and 85L II myself but have a larger kit for those other events blah blah.

For portraits the 85L seems ideal for you. Most portraits I do are in a studio and my 24-105 is fine for that since I shoot 5.6 to 8. My issue is more gear lust, but the practical side of me wants to scale back my kit to just what I need.

LostArk wrote in post #15384901
Well I actually prefer the 35mm FoV to 24, which ironically is how I ended up with a 24; I owned a 7D for about a year before I got my 5D2. That's also how I ended up with a 50; 24+50 = 35+85 on crop (more or less). Only reason I got the 135 is because when I got my 5D2 I couldn't throw down for an 85 1.2 in the same fiscal quarter lol. I've thought about keeping my 50 1.8 for portability, but I think I might get a shorty forty for that duty!

gotcha. That sounds great as well :] 35 40 85

Nice little setup if you ask me

Edit: I do want to add, that I own both the 40 and the 50/1.8, and the 50s images are so much better in terms of versatility. The 40's only assets are its sharpness and small size, whereas the 50 is low light, bokeh, decently small, and cheap beyond belief. It's up to you though.

I like the 35/85 combination. A bit wider than normal, a bit tighter than normal. Superlative lenses that cover just about everything I want to shoot.