As for the body, I think it is a great choice. Sony is a camera that will deliver. I’m not the biggest fan of the colors produced by their .jpgs - but the RAW files are great.

If 33mp satisfies the resolution you will be printing then I think it’s a great camera. I opted for the a7r4 for the extra resolution - I edit, rotate a bit, trim the photo and still crop down to 4:5 or 4:3 and have plenty of data left for a 16x20/300dpi print; but the A74 is unquestionably a better camera for video.

One thing I notice about your lens is that you are selecting options from various manufacturers. I think one advantage of buying 2 or 3 fast zooms from the same manufacturer (ie; 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 GM by Sony) is that the overall look (bokeh, color, contrast, etc…) is consistent regardless of which lens you are using, and you are free to focus on shooting rather than changing lenses.

Aside from that, the 16-35/4 PZ is popular for video. Makes sense.

The Tamron 70-180/2.8 is as popular lens - you’ll be able to cover 85mm and 135mm just fine, which are popular lengths for various portraits. Realistically, 2.8 is adequate unless you want to do some artsy stuff on a focal plain that nearly doesn’t exist.

The Sony 50/1.8 — well, I’ll be honest — I think the lens is garbage. I’m not pleased with the sample I have because the contrast is poor and sharpness underperforms. When I bought my first Sony FF I bought the 50/1.8 assuming that it would make up for the kit lens – and, well, it didn’t – I thought I had a bad camera lol. I didn’t. Today, I usually use my $50 Minolta/Rokkor 58mm/1.4 MC II instead - I don’t mind manual focus.

I’d probably want a good 24-70/2.8 for day to day use if I’m working events. I can walk into a situation and know I have my bases covered instead of reaching for various primes.

If you’re not opposed to manual focus lenses, Mitakon makes a few interesting products. The 50mm/.95 for full frame cams is popular because it renders very shallow images – some people compare it to the old “Canon Dream Lens” which would cost $2-3k used, vs. the Mitakon for $275 used. Personally, I own the 85/1.2 and 65/1.4. I like the features of the Mitakon lenses that many people do not – manual focus with a long throw, and a de-clicked aperture ring on the front of the lens. When used wide open, they render a hallmark look that is soft and timeless looking - in my opinion.

Anyway, overall, good picks and best of luck.