Originally posted by gooseta portrait lens
Try your 50 fora while, and see how it goes. Maybe you won't need anything else
Originally posted by gooseta Also, do you think the 31mm f1.8 should replace my 35/2.4?
The 31 is better, but if the 35 is good enough for you, take your time before spending more is my advice.
Originally posted by gooseta For the macro, would a 50mm, 70mm, 100mm, or 150mm be more versatile
Since you already have a 50, I'd go with the 100 macro if you can afford it, you'll get WR and a usable short tele with great IQ. Otherwise, the Tamron 90mm macro is almost as good (see the comparative review here).
Originally posted by gooseta Also, for a tele lens for airshows and occasional wildlife, can you recommend a mf lens with iq that is comparable to the Sigma 150-500?
I haven't used that Sigma, but regarding teles, if AF speed is not an issue I'd say get the inexpensive Tamron 70-200. If AF speed and f2,8 are required, get the newest Sigma 70-200. If f2,8 is not mandatory, get the Pentax 60-250 f4, it's got a longer range, is WR, great IQ even at f4 (probably as good as the 70-200s at f4) and currently inexpensive (sort of).
Enjoy your new lenses, and show us some pictures!