Thinking of shaking up my lens lineup - need some advice

I'm doing a little thinking outloud and want to bounce some ideas off the fine folks of POTN.

My shooting habits have changed a bit and I am considering shaking up my lens lineup. The biggest change is that I have pretty much completely stopped taking on weddings - I'm now focusing more on my personal work (landscapes, travel, street, abstract), some commercial/client, and microstock. For an accurate cross section of my shooting please see the portfolio section of my website listed in my signature.

I am looking to make some changes as I'm being tempted by the prime bug and I want faster glass in my bag. I have let go of quite a bit of my gear since last summer, I am currently down to working with the following lineup:

30D x 2, 17-40L, 100mm F/2.8 Macro, 70-200 F/2.8 ISL

Now because of the economy and uncertainty around job security I may need to sacrafice some of my current equipment to afford anything new. A body upgrade is not in the cards for the near future. While the 100 macro is a great performer I am thinking of letting it go due to lack of use. The painful part would be potentially selling my 70-200 to fund new gear. It is a fantastic lens, a workhorse, but for personal work / travel it stays home due to the weight and size. Here's where the advice peice comes in...

if I sell the 100 macro and 70-200 I could do something like this:

a. Buy the 35L and 135L - giving me 17-40, 35, 135. This leaves me with nothing from 40-135 which I am a bit weary about.

b. Buy the 24-70L and 135L - I've had the brick before and regret selling it, but I don't welcome it's bulk

If I sell the 100 macro but keep the 70-200 I could maybe scrimp and save towards:

c. 50mm f/1.4 + 135L - giving me some fast glass along with a smaller, lighter, telephoto. Let's me retain the 70-200 for client work when needed.

d. get the 35L and live with the big bulky telephoto that often stays home.

To me it sounds like C is the most affordable and makes the most sense. I would then down the road look at the 24L or 35L once the economy turns around and my income is back up (I'm an account executive for an american firm, yikes!).

Thanks for any input folks - cheers!

c) Sounds good. 17-40L, 50 1.4, and 135L is a solid setup. But what kind of commercial work do you do?

Perry Ge wrote in post #7582452
c) Sounds good. 17-40L, 50 1.4, and 135L is a solid setup. But what kind of commercial work do you do?

Yes 17-40 f/4, 50mm f/1.4, 135 f/2, and 70-200 would be pretty good, and would translate to a FF lineup I could live with down the road... but that's off topic. I'm not doing much portrait, glamour, or fashion work. I have been taking on some corporate, advertising, still life, and journalism work.

Thanks.

Can you do without a macro lens for still life? I am a fan of the 50 2.5 Compact Macro.

I like C. It's a good range, and allows a lot of flexibility.

Perry Ge wrote in post #7582535
Can you do without a macro lens for still life? I am a fan of the 50 2.5 Compact Macro.

The macro is very good for that kind of work - I had finally made up my mind to sell it, now you have me second guessing it! It is rare that I actually do 1:1 macro, as a consideration the 50 and 135 both do decent macro with tubes attached...

I like C as well. You'll have some good times with that 135mm 2.0. You'll have fast, light and sharp!

Thanks for the advice all. That 135L is really calling my name, I may be able to find it in stock but the 50mm f/1.4 is gonzo everywhere. It's given me a moment to consider going with the Tamron 28-75 in lieu for some added flexibility.

Any other thoughts?

Cheers.

50mm 1.4 is awesome. Good luck finding one