Portrait Shooters Lens Priority?

So I just went FF last week but prior to doing so I sold pretty much all of my lenses because I knew the focal lengths would be dramatically different So now im working with a 6D, 85mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.4. I immediately noticed the 50 and 85 are far more useful with the wider angle of the FF sensor but now trying to figure out the best order to add those additional perspectives. Ive never show with a 70-200 because it was so "long" on a crop and I don't shoot wide too often, I imagine on a typical shoot I would use it once or twice. I also absolutely loved the 24-70 on my crop, question is would I be better off just getting another 24-70 on my FF, or should I go 70-200 first based on your usage in a portrait setting. Perhaps a better question is, what order would you purchase the following for family sessions

24-70 2.8
11-16 2.8
50 1.4
85 1.4
70-200

Im willing to let the 50 go to help fund the 24-70, I ditched my 50mm 1.8 on my crop for the 24-70 and found the zoom covered the range even better than the prime. The 50 was really only purchased so that I can have AF

If I am doing portraits, I will just put the 50 and 135mm in the bag. 85mm never really worked for me and I was never please with the results of the 85 1.8. I just recently got the Samyang 85 for crop but will give it a go on my 6d soon.

Family stuff I use the 24-70, 135, and 70-200. Depending on what I'm trying to achieve I may use all or only one of the lenses.

flowrider wrote in post #17643509
Family stuff I use the 24-70, 135, and 70-200. Depending on what I'm trying to achieve I may use all or only one of the lenses.

Exact setup that I like too for family/portrait stuff. I have a 50mm but I am going to sell it for lack of use.

Depends on how you like to compose your portraits and what focal lengths you personally prefer. Some people swear by longer lenses, some prefer primes, some like the versatility of zooms. Me, I'd be fine with a 35mm and a short tele option (90/100/70-200).

For portraits I'm 75% w/ the 70-200 range. Love 85mm on FF for portraits and 135mm. On other occasions I like 35 and 50. Depends on the setting, room available and the look you want. There's no right answer.

i use a 24-70, 85 and 135.

i used to use 35/85/135 but i like the versatility of the zoom for event coverage. the 85 and 135 are my main lenses for posed portraits depending on how much room i have to work.

I use my 24-105L and 85 1.8. If I want creamy bokeh, I'll use my sigma 70-200 2.8.

If I was restricted to just one lens under 200mm I'd take my 70-200 2.8 II. It is just a phenomenal lens on FF.

I love the 85mm range for portraits (I don't usually shoot groups of more than 2-3), but technically I could do with a 24-70 2.8L, or 70-200 2.8L as well, since 70mm isn't a huge difference. I have the 50 1.4, but it tends to not get used nearly as much as the 85. I've used the 24-70 and 24-105L for families in tight locations where I can't use the 50 or 85.

My biggest issue with the 70-200 is that I love shooting it at 200 wide open, which poses a working distance problem for me since I'm shooting in parks and public locations a lot. Sometimes other people get in the way, or it's just too noisy for my subject to hear me from that far away. I love the look though.

With my 6D I go with the 24-105mm but also put the 70-200mm in the bag. I prefer zoom lenses to primes as it is so much easier to compose.

My go-to portrait set up is the 6D with either the 85mm f/1.8 or the 100mm f/2.8...

24-70 f2.8L v2 for inside work and 70-200 f2.8 L IS v.2 for outside work, that simple for me.

Van Gogh wrote in post #17708168
24-70 f2.8L v2 for inside work and 70-200 f2.8 L IS v.2 for outside work, that simple for me.

Yep. Used to use primes, switched to 24-70 2.8. Not being able to completely blur the background is a nice challenge, and it's very convenient.

I have been mainly a zoom guy and have owned all variants of 70-200mm f2.8. But now a days it is mainly 85L. So if it was me, it would be 35L, 85L and 135L. 24-70mm is nice but f2.8 is slow (relatively speaking).