Input on lenses for people who went from crop to FF

I'm sure this has been discussed but I'd like a little more specific commentary. I went from crop to FF and owned a handful of EF-S lenses which I'll be selling. So right now, for lenses I can use on my 5DII it is basically the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, and the Canon 50mm and 85mm f/1.8. That leaves me with no lens longer than 85mm and my "walk around" length zoom is non-IS so while it is f/2.8 it isn't as usable as an f/2.8 IS in a similar focal length would be.

I'm curious what other people have done when they've had more EF-S lenses than EF and moved to full frame. I had recently sold my Sigma 150-500 OS as well so I had the range of 18mm-500mm covered pretty well. If you convert that to "full frame like" 28mm-800mm. Now I find myself with coverage from 28mm-85mm.

Not looking for anything specific. The obvious answer seems to be to buy one of the 70-200mm variants, a 100-400mm, and maybe another longer prime in the 100mm range. But I'm just curious what people think.

Focal Length coverage isn't always a "need." I think you should think about what you take pictures of or plan on and then plan your lens coverage for that. If you find that you do a lot of wide-angle environmental/architec​ture and portraiture, you don't really need beyond what you have. If you do nature/animal shots, then you would need a nice telephoto.

I went from a 40D to a 5D. The lenses I had for the 40D were the 17-85 EF-S kit lens and a nifty fifty.

When I bought the 5D, I opted for the 24-70 rather than the 24-105 that was being sold as a kit in a lot of stores, knowing that I was also aiming for a 70-200, which is my preferred lens when working from 70mm upwards.

Apart from a 100mm macro lens, and a 100-400 that I use for sports, which I acquired shortly after getting the camera, I am now looking for something a little wider. I don't think I want anything ultra wide, so will probably go for a 17-40 at some point.

Anything beyond that I feel will come under the 'want' label rather than the'need' label. Possibly a couple of primes at some point, but I will probably upgrade my studio lighting before investing in more glass.

Eh, I gave up on the idea of covering a focal range upon seeing the meager use of my 70-200 in my LR stats. Now I just rent a tele or super tele when I go to the zoo once a year - I never used it, otherwise.

One other oddity for me - I loved the 50 on a crop and thought that I'd love the 85 on a FF. Nope. The 50 had a much less intrusive (for me) MFD than the 85. On FF, the 100 macro was a better substitute.

Yeah, the MFD on the 85 is a bit of a bummer.