Small studio lens for full-length and small groups

I have a very small studio. When I'm shooting headshots or 3/4 length shots, I typically use the 85L or 50L, and I'm happy with the results. When I'm shooting full-length or small groups (can't do large groups in there), then I have to use something else. While I really like my 16-35 and 24-70 lenses, and I most often reach for the 24-70 in these situations, I'm never quite as happy with the IQ and contrast/pop as I am with the primes. Maybe I'm spoiled by the primes. I often wonder if I need a prime to use in these situations. I should note that I've never tried to use the Zeiss 21mm and maybe I should give that a try. But I figured I'd ask if there's something obvious I'm missing from my arsenal. I think I know what the answer will be, but I figured it wouldn't hurt (except my wallet) to ask.

I use my 24-105 on both my 5D II and 7D for studio portraits. This covers full body to fairly tight head shots without a lens change. I typically shoot in the studio (mine is also small) at f8 or f11 so a fast prime isn't needed in this case. I have been very happy with this setup.

Because studio lighting lets you use your lens at its maximum potential, stopped down enough for max sharpness, you should be able to get great images from the 24-70. I wonder if what you are seeing may not be any difference in quality, but the fact that as you shoot bigger groups you lose some of the pop that the extra magnification brings, even with quality glass?

Small studio and small groups seems like an issue to me. I just nevevr understand why people in such a controlled situation as a studio are using zooms.

For less distortion, I prefer TS 24 f/3.5L II, but it does'nt AF

Well, that's right that I'm usually shooting at f8-f11, but I still see a difference between the primes I mentioned and the 24-70. If I pixel-peep, I'll see a tiny bit of softness that I don't see with the primes. Could be that even with microadjustments, focus won't be perfect across the entire zoom range, even stopped down. I'm not saying the shots with the 24-70 are bad - just not quite as good as what I get with the 50L and 85L. So it started me wondering if I should consider a prime, like the 35L, or maybe something else.

I have never had anyone complain about softness in the images taken with my 24-105, but I think I might have complaints if I had to keep changing lenses during a shoot. Once I have the look I'm after, I like being able to go from full body all the way to a tight shot very quickly. As far as the 35L, it is an outstanding lens, but I have never used mine in the studio. Maybe I should give it a go.

I've noticed that when I'm shooting in the studio with the 24-70, which means I'm shooting a small group or full-length, I'm very often right around 35mm or a little wider. I've never had anyone complain either. I'm the one being more critical of the shots, but because of that, I worry more and get less excited about doing these types of shots, thinking my results might be disappointing. I never give that a second thought when I shoot with the 85L, for instance. Another idea I had is to find a focal length that I prefer for group and full-length and then microadjust the 24-70 at that focal length to see if it makes any difference.

Imo... If you're doing small group shots and find there is no sweet sharp spot, micro adjust isn't going to do much... It would seem to me that if the depth of the sharpness is not where your focus is, then I can see how MA will help... Its not like you're noticing that in your group shots that the hair on the back of the persons head is sharper than the eyes... You're saying at the maximum sharp spot, its just not that sharp... I would guess the zooms would have to be sent in or primes are your taste...

Go for the prime! Dooo iiiitt.... 24L... Do it..... Doooooo it...d