The Tamron 90 macro, in both the old and new versions, are Full Frame compatible. This is even stated on their detailed material.
In that list, I would keep the 18-55, FA 50, the Tamron 90, and the Sigma 70-300.
I would drop the 28-105 and the 85/2
My reasoning is, the 18-55 and the 70-300 covers the mass spectrum of focal lengths for traveling - and 18-28 is much more important than 55-105, if I have the 70-300.
The Tamron 90 allows macro and is fantastically sharp. I cannot say the same for your 85/2.
And the FA 50 1.4 is going to give you shots in the lowest lights possible.
Originally posted by Philoslothical One more thing to consider, with the 85 and 90: Some people don't prefer macro lenses for portraiture, because they are extremely sharp, and they bring out every blemish on a person's skin. This can of course be subdued in pp, but your 85 might have a better character for this kind of shot. You'd have to experiment and see.
I'd like to disagree with this statement - the Tamron 90 is fantastic for portraits because of it's exceptional bokeh. At F2.8, it isn't as sharp as the Sigma 105 or the Pentax DFA 100. It may show blemishes more, but it is not that difficult to reduce the clarity. It is difficult, however, to get as good a bokeh as the Tamron 90.