Canon 35 f1 + Canon 85 f1.8

dpreview was not associated with dxo at the time dpreview did the testing.  DXO conducted separate tests that shows the 100L is sharper.  And I showed the visual from the digital picture site showing the 100 L is sharper.

Three reputable sites.  Three reputable reviews.  You didn't trust photozone for their assessment of bokeh on your 35 f2

as I said - Game, Set, Match

Because you have F4L on crop.  I know this.  F2.8L on FF and even crop changes everything.  As GB pointed out, in equivalency  - 70-200 F2.8 at F2.8 on FF provides the dof  equivalent of F1.8 dof on crop.  It is called -- flexibility.

That is one reason why I updated my beloved F4L to my F2.8L.  Suggest you consider the same when you get FF.  Then there isn't much reason for 85 f1.8.  BTW -- we established that you didn't have the tamy 60 f2 ( at least you didn't answer the question).  Can you show some shots from your 85 f1.8?

My Flexibility comments are not lame.  The 70-200 F2.8 versions are much more flexible on FF than the F4L version.  When it was me - that is the investment I made first.  Then the 100L came later.  No place for an 85.

If Canon comes out with a new 50 F1.4 IS -- I'll get that one instead of my 50 f1.8II and 50 f1.4

remaining 50 mm apart for prime sets is a smart idea

You said if you got the sigma F1.4 art you'd use it between F4-F8.  Ouch.  Look at the bokeh samples at F4 at the Digital Picture Site -- the bokeh does not look so hot at F4.  But the fact of the matter is -- I wouldn't buy the sigma F1.4 unless I intended to use it F1.4 - F2.2  That is the reason to buy the sigma.  And Schmegg  has shown it has good bokeh at these wide open or near wide open settings.

So what I've said is not lame.  I've had to debunk your unique viewpoint on gear.  What I've said is flexibility for the $ spent.