I guess it's entirely a question of what he's hoping to gain.


I wouldn't trade my 70-200 for any of those options listed. In fact, I think aside from the 24-70, it'd be the last thing to go. In the context that he's going to be missing a good chunk of focal length range, to replace it with a prime, particularly considering that under 200mm, subject movement can change the picture size significantly, I just wouldn't do it.


I've got the 135 f2, and it'sa great lens, superb actually, and the image quality is fantastic, but it's still short enough that if things are moving toward or away from you, it changes the framing enough that you'll need to move with them, and if you've got people or objects in your way, you're screwed. It's also long enough that you can't change the framing significantly without at least a few steps, as opposed to the under 50mm range.


I've used my macro lens for general purpose pictures too, and it's worked well, but the versatility and of a zoom can't be discounted.


Personally, I like the suggestion of the close up lens, or simply adding the EF-S 60mm as finances allow. Any other way you're giving up far more than you're getting.