Hunting for a bargain: Canon 5D series (and lens choice query)

For some background about me - I began my Canon journey with an 80D when it first came out, and upgraded to an R7 when it released 2 years ago. Currently running a 10-18mm, 17-55mm and 70-200 f4 IS, all 1st party EF.

I've had a hankering to explore some 'older' FF bodies, and thought I could put my 70-200 to use if I was to ever acquire the RF 70-200 f4 for my R7. I've been tossing up between the 5D and 5D2. I've read about the color rendition on the Mark 1, but the Mark 2 has a bunch of QoL features. And the Mark 3 improves on that again.

I'm not after all the bells and whistles, as my R7 covers that side of things. But I also don't want to be frustrated with the experiencing of owning a 5D. Seems like the Mark 1 is pretty average on the autofocus front with no tracking, or LV autofocus. Won't need video or a massive amount of continuous shooting. ISO performance won't be a dealbreaker for me.

I don't intend to push this camera to the extremes. Just some basic landscape photography, maybe a bit of street here and there. Nothing at night I can't imagine. I can buy a Mark 1 or Mark 2 for around USD$200, or a Mark 3 for about $500. I can afford any option (or a combination), but I would rather settle for one body that serves me best.

For owners (current or previous) of the 5D Marks 1-3, let me know what your experience has been with these cameras and which body would suit someone in my position. If you've owned multiple, being able to compare would be fantastic!

Secondly, if I was to jump into this world of full frame, I'd need some lenses to go along with it (alongside my EF 70-200). I'm not after great depth of field or low light performance. Just some reasonably sharp and well-built glass.

Some combination of the following would be what I'm thinking:

  • Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 IS II

  • Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 IS

  • Canon EF 40mm f/2.8

  • Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 II

  • Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 II

  • Some of the Sigma primes that Canon don't natively cover (like 20mm or 28mm. I've used the Sigma primes in the past and really enjoyed them so I could be convinced to prefer Sigma over the Canon primes)

Yes, I'm aware I said I wasn't looking for crazy depth of field. Which is why I'm not looking to invest in f/2.8 zooms. Even a f/4 zoom would be equivalent to my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, so I wouldn't be losing out on equivalent depth of field anyway.

The primes offer a smaller footprint, and some creative restriction compared to zoom lenses where you get a range of focal lengths. And the advantage is that I can adapt them to my R7. I'm looking to pick up the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 and the 10-18mm f/2.8 when they release, so maybe I'd be better off just getting primes so unlocking a new/novel choice on both systems. Compared to buying the EF zoom lenses for which my current/future setup for my R7 already covers. Hope that made sense.

Sorry for the long post but thought I'd be smart to give a reasonable amount of context and info to help get my points across. And I apologize if this is a discussion already had elsewhere. I've looked on other Reddit threads and photo forums but couldn't come to an obvious conclusion.

Thanks for reading.

EDIT: Thanks to everyone for their comments and insight. Lots of points to consider and fascinating to learn about everyone's individual experience. I've found a bargain deal of a 5D2 + EF 40mm + EF 50mm STM for a smidge under $300. I think the 5D2 will be a good starting point to see whether I need the advancements of the 5D3 or if I really want the look of the 5D Classic. And the two primes that come with it will tide me over until I hypothetically grab the 24-105mm f/4 II. Thanks again :)