Is my Canon kit possible in Nikon terms ?

At the moment I have the lenses in my signature.
Tomorrow i'm probably going to sell my 5D2 and buy a 6D instead (better iso,newer,...).
The reviews were all in favour of the 6D.

I also saw some comparisons between a 6D and a D600 in favour of the Nikon (a lot more AF points, built-in flash, ...).
I know this is a Canon forum, but would the set in my signature be availble the same from Nikon or would it be more difficult ?

For example what would be the Nikon competitors of my superb 35L - 135L - 70-200 2.8L II ?

I also I buy most of my lenses second hand, so would have to wait a long time
I know, glass is more important than the body, I don't know anything about Nikon glass, but the body is better.

Probably I go for the 6D for the better ISO (maybe with a batterygrip for my 70-200II as the body is 200g lighter), I was just curious about Nikon's lenses.

This is not coming from experience with the Nikon lenses, but only what I've seen in reviews and heard from a family member that shoots NIkon.

Nikon's 135 does not hold its own against Canon's. Many people say it suffers horrible CA in in direct sunlight and the image quality doesn't come near Canon's. If your are switching to Nikon, the decision is easy for 35mm, the Sigma 35 hands down. As for Nikon's 35, I've head good things in terms of image quality being equivalent to Canon's 35L.

Like I said I haven't used the Nikon equivalents so take this how you will. My suggestion is to rent a d610 and those lenses you'd be pairing it with to see how they do.

Nikon make some excellent lenses and some excellent cameras, but then so do Canon. At every level there are pros and cons to either system - for example I would love a Nikon 14-24 but a Nikon D4 could not replace my 1DX. On the other hand the Nikon D610 has a lot going for it but then so has the 5d2 (you already have it!) and 6D. Try both the Nikon and Canon alternatives out, then sit back, think about it, work out how much it would cost you to change systems and what (if any) improvement you would get. I suspect it would be little, if anything!
They are both excellent systems, so it's down to the photographer!
P.S. If you do ditch your 5D2 how much are you looking for? Excellent landscape camera - fancying one.

5D MKII = D700. But you're better off with the D800 or D600/610 (newer tech)
Σ 15 2.8 FE = there is a Nikon mount of this lens, about $350 used at KEH.
35 1.4L = Nikon 35 1.4G, but *IMO* the Sigma 35 1.4 ART is better
85 1.8 = Nikon 85 1.8G, $400 used, excellent lens. However, my suggestion is save up a couple hundred bucks and get the older 85 1.4D (about $650 used) Much better rendering IMO.
135 2L = Nikon 135 f/2DC. A little old but still good glass. Not as good as the Canon 135 though.
Tokina 16-28 2.8 | Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC = There's a Nikon mount for these
Canon 70-200 2.8L II = Nikon 70-200 VRII. Awesome lens.

Make sure you try out the Nikon bodies first.. I'm not very fond of the D600/610 ergonomics compared to the 6D but every hand is different

i hope you're not switching systems for a built in flash...

CanonYouCan wrote in post #16648121
At the moment I have the lenses in my signature.
Tomorrow i'm probably going to sell my 5D2 and buy a 6D instead (better iso,newer,...).
The reviews were all in favour of the 6D.

I also saw some comparisons between a 6D and a D600 in favour of the Nikon (a lot more AF points, built-in flash, ...).
I know this is a Canon forum, but would the set in my signature be availble the same from Nikon or would it be more difficult ?

For example what would be the Nikon competitors of my superb 35L - 135L - 70-200 2.8L II ?

I also I buy most of my lenses second hand, so would have to wait a long time
I know, glass is more important than the body, I don't know anything about Nikon glass, but the body is better.

Probably I go for the 6D for the better ISO (maybe with a batterygrip for my 70-200II as the body is 200g lighter), I was just curious about Nikon's lenses.

D610 is superior to 6D in many ways. To me it feels more like a professional camera than the 6D. But if you like to stream images on the fly, then the 6D is it.

35mm equivalent: the 35 1.4 G is very similar. It's a wash. The L might be slighly sharper and faster autofocus.

135mm. No question. Canon. The Nikon is old and outdated.

70-200: Sorry, Canon here again. The nikon has too much zoom creep when you're in minimum focus distance. It's a 70mm - 135mm when in minimum focus. The Canon is sharper, faster, and IMO, has a better hood for protection if you ever bump it. (I have).

I use both Nikon and Canon cameras, but now mostly Nikon. I definitely wouldn't change from Canon to Nikon or vise versa if I had lenses for of them, but I especially don't like selling/buying.

Nikon has equivalent lenses to all of those.
Some are more or less the same, like the 35mm, though you might prefer the Sigma over both. Or the 70-200mm, which you can find people who prefer either one (I slightly prefer the Canon but I don't like this type of lens regardless).
I like the Canon 135mm much more than the Nikon. The Nikon is an older design non-AFS lens and many like it a lot for its "special" look, but I prefer the more modern type of lens like the Canon.
The Nikon 85mm f/1.8G is one of their best lenses and I prefer it to the Canon equivalent. It's actually one of my favorite Nikon lenses.

CanonYouCan wrote in post #16648121
....
Probably I go for the 6D for the better ISO (maybe with a batterygrip for my 70-200II as the body is 200g lighter), ...

6D is lighter of 180g than the 5D Mk III, if you compare with your actual 5D Mk II it's something like 100g of difference (or less). If you want something light in full frame, have a look at Sony A7/A7R ! (and with these Sony you could use your Canon autofocus lenses with an adapter...)

Titi

You want a Sony sensor? Buy the a7 or a7R and keep all your lenses.
Why even bother with all those headaches of changing systems for dubious results at a significant loss of $$$, time and effort....

You are pretty well invested in quality Canon lenses. Although the D610 is the better camera I really don't think you will see enough improvement to make a switch like that. I switched from a 50D to the Nikon D600, which was a big step up for me. I was able to sell my Canon L's for pretty well what I had in them. But the main reason for my switch was being able to use the super quality old AIS manual lenses and the dynamic range of the D600.
Good luck in your decision.

Ray

I know Nikon shooters who think the 70-200 mkII is unbelievable, they think the 70-200 mkII with a 1.4TC is really nice and a few think the 70-200 with a 2xTCIII is impossibly good. The 135 is one of Canons legends and better than the Nikon but maybe not that much.

D610 is good, D800 is good, 5DIII is better over ISO1600 and starts getting better DR at that point, 6D too. 5DIII has a better buffer and is way faster. Your glass kind of say "I shoot street and people" but you do not say exactly? Maybe you would be better suited with an A7 or A7R and MBIII adaptor? Focus peaking might be a plus in low light?

Either way, for me, it is a 50/50 split over sensor tech and glass. I do not think either is worth switching for if you already invested 4k or so in glass...