Recommend a new lens

My current lens collection consist of a 35mm 1.4 Sigma Art, Canon 135L f2, 100mm L Macro. Photography work would be Portraits, family and team pictures. If you had to pick what Canon offers, which lens would you go with? Thanks and hope all is well.

70-200 f2.8 II IS USM.

Considering your current lens collection, I will assume you are using a full-frame body. You already have really good long(er) lenses for portrait work. For home/family/team photos I would suggest a wider zoom. If you're into big, heavy, expensive zooms, take a look at the 24-70 f/2.8L II. For less than half the money, you can get a 24-70 f/4L.

Bassat wrote in post #18511576
Considering your current lens collection, I will assume you are using a full-frame body. You already have really good long(er) lenses for portrait work. For home/family/team photos I would suggest a wider zoom. If you're into big, heavy, expensive zooms, take a look at the 24-70 f/2.8L II. For less than half the money, you can get a 24-70 f/4L.

Yes, I'm using full frame. 5dsr and 5dmark ii. Thanks guys. hope all is well.

You have 35/85/135 covered basically. I don't see a reason to add anything, unless you find yourself limited on the wide end. In which case, I would add an ultrawide like the Canon 16-35 F4LIS, or a Rokinon 14 F2.8 or an Obteka 15mm F4, but only if you embrace the crazy wide side of ultrawide for creative environmental portraits/groups.

I can't recall the name, but someone here on the board did it with the ultrawide with sequoia trees and it was lovely.

My own example (17mm on full frame; speedlite to fill that dark corner up):

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/WsQM​Vi

What's the budget? That's important.

If I was shooting what you have listed as paid work it would be:

35 1.4
24-70 f2.8L ii
135L

Personally I would sell the 100L and just use extension tubes on the 135L. One less lens I would have to carry and as a portrait lens it's too close to 135mm, which the 135L does better.

Columbia wrote in post #18511684
What's the budget? That's important.

If I was shooting what you have listed as paid work it would be:

35 1.4
24-70 f2.8L ii
135L

Personally I would sell the 100L and just use extension tubes on the 135L. One less lens I would have to carry and as a portrait lens it's too close to 135mm, which the 135L does better.

So, you are suggesting the 24-70 II, right? Seems reasonable.

I disagree with your entire logic of selling the 100L. It has IS, the 135 does not. It does 1:1, the 135 does not. If 100 is too close to 135, how much different is 85?

Use extension tubes with the 135L? Ok, you'd need 108mm of extension tube to make the 135L do 1:1. Canon EF 25 II tubes are $127 each. $508 to have 1:1 lens setup? A hugely cumbersome setup at that. And you still don't have IS. This is a bad idea on every level I can think of.

I have an 85 1.8, 100 macro, and 135L. Not selling any of them. I'm certainly not selling my 100 for the going rate of ~$350 to replace it with $500 worth of extension tubes.

Bassat wrote in post #18511686
So, you are suggesting the 24-70 II, right? Seems reasonable.

I disagree with your entire logic of selling the 100L. It has IS, the 135 does not. It does 1:1, the 135 does not. If 100 is too close to 135, how much different is 85?

Use extension tubes with the 135L? Ok, you'd need 108mm of extension tube to make the 135L do 1:1. Canon EF 25 II tubes are $127 each. $508 to have 1:1 lens setup? A hugely cumbersome setup at that. And you still don't have IS. This is a bad idea on every level I can think of.

I have an 85 1.8, 100 macro, and 135L. Not selling any of them. I'm certainly not selling my 100 for the going rate of ~$350 to replace it with $500 worth of extension tubes.

The OP never mentioned macro work in his post and also omitted a budget. I took that to mean it wasn't a primary focus like portraits, which the 135L and 24-70ii do fantastically well, and so I offered an alternative that offsets the cost of the 24-70ii.

Extension tubes are a great convenience without having to invest in a lens (Kenko, same build quality as Canon). Sure, I don't get as close to the same magnification as when I had my 100L, but they're a great alternative and one less lens I need to carry.

My previous post was from my perspective as if I was to shoot exactly what the OP stated. It was not an attack on anyone else's opinion and I think the animosity in the reply was uncalled for. It's obvious you have found what works for you and that's great, but shooting down alternatives without having the OP explain in further detail what they require doesn't look good.

I disagreed with you. That is all. There is no right or wrong here, only opinions, none more or less valid than the next.

By the way, I disagree with the implication that you can read 'tone' or 'attitude' from written words. Any perceived attack or animosity is strictly internal on your part.

Reading fail on my part... I misread the OP as "Portraits, family and team SPORTS", hence my suggestion of the 70-200 zoom.

That being said, suggesting a lens to go with a 35/100/135 lineup for primarily portrait use? I mean, aside from a 85L/85A you pretty much the primary portrait lenses covered with the 135L and 100L. What more are you wanting for portrait work? Good suggestions for a wider zoom, either a 16-35 or 24-70. Might stoke some creativity while bringing some versatility to your lineup.

Thanks everybody for the replies. I've been eyeing the 24-70 2.8 ii.. with that said for around the same price, could get the 70-200mm 2.8 ii. I had the 70-200 f4 at one time but too me size, length of that lens was little difficult to shoot and the 70-200mm 2.8 is only bigger so with already having the 135L I feel like I have that area covered. Let me know what you think. Thanks everybody! Your the best.

I started with 135L & 200L II primes. I thought a zoom would be more convenient, so I sold them and bought a 70-200 2.8. Massive beast. That didn't last long before I downsized it to an f/4. Then I missed the aperture of the primes. So I repurchased both the 135L and 200L II.

I had a 24-70 2.8... for about a week. That was the about the fastest lens I ever flipped. It took me about an hour to realize it was a compromise on both fronts. Not as fast as even my consumer primes, and a tiny zoom range, comparatively. Big and heavy on top of that.

I'm with @MalVeaux. Ultrawide can be fun for portraits. I'd suggest the 16-35 f/4 as I love mine, but you seem to have a preference for primes, so maybe the Canon 14mm?

Tough to say if you don't specify a price and weight/size.

I shoot professionally and have seen my work in major magazines.

I travel with a ton of L primes, but I would panic if I were on any shoot with the 24-70mm 2.8 L Mark 2 and 70-200 2.8 IS L Mark 2 (I shoot Canon, of course). Both are expensive but I'm pretty impressed with the IQ when compared to the L primes.

conraderb wrote in post #18511875
Tough to say if you don't specify a price and weight/size.

I shoot professionally and have seen my work in major magazines.

I travel with a ton of L primes, but I would panic if I were on any shoot with the 24-70mm 2.8 L Mark 2 and 70-200 2.8 IS L Mark 2 (I shoot Canon, of course). Both are expensive but I'm pretty impressed with the IQ when compared to the L primes.

I'm not worried about weight and size. Thanks!