DigiNon wrote in post #11855465
Could someone please help me out here ^^^
This is a tough one as I don't have experience with most of the lenses you are asking about, but maybe I can help you think it through.
The 135L is pretty awesome. As close to perfect as I can imagine. Smooth buttery focus ring, blazing fast AF, and fantastic IQ (colors,sharpness, etc.). You can add a 1.4x tc and get close to 200mm 2.8 too.The 70-200 2.8 is pretty highly regarded, but it is too big, expensive, and white for me. I would choose the 135L.
There is another active thread of someone asking about 135L or 70-200 2.8, maybe search for it and check it out.
I don't think I would get 17-40 and 24-70 if it was me.The 17-55 on crop (similar to 27-88 on ff) was almost always wide enough for me. There were times when I wanted wider but not that often. The Sigma 8-16 was too wide and just didn't get enough use by me personally. Plus 24-70 is f/2.8. I think I would choose the 24-70 if I was picking between the two. Having said that, I rented it once and much preferred the 17-55 on my 40D.
The 85L is supposed to be the ultimate portrait lens and you mentioned portrait/studio stuff. However, I tried my friend's once and the AF is surprisingly slow (It is very sharp though). Without question the slowest of any high quality lens I have ever used. Don't get this one for sports. the 85 f/1.8 is better for sports and moving subjects from what I understand. If your cars and motorcycles are moving, choose the 85 f/1.8.
I'm just not sure what to tell you about the wide-normal focal length range. I do miss the 17-55 sometimes. If they would just make a 24-70 IS for you ff zoom people, the choice would be easy. I can see it now. Every single signature in the Zoom Lovers Anonymous forum would be: 24-70L IS, 70-200 2.8L Mk II.
Also, I am probably going to purchase the 35L tonight, so... I think you know where I stand.
You will likely be happy whatever you choose.
Good luck, let us know what you pick.