This might help with what im trying to say:

Comparing one general approach to another, where the difference being looked at is, say, duration of cycle, everything else ought to be held equal in the comparison if possible.

So the question should not be, "Will one 8 week cycle give me more results than one 2 week cycle?" unless that is the actual choice that would have to made and the answer wasn't thought to apply to a more general question, but rather something like

"If I use the same total amount of steroids in a year at the same weekly dosages and the same total number of weeks on and weeks off, which will do better for me, long or short cycles?"

Cycles are longer than effiicent if they have substantial parts of them at a point past a point where gains usually tail well off; or yielding impaired recoveries and thus worse losses; or being so long that there is no hope of taking advantage of how some periods of training can be especially productive whereas doing everything the same and/or aiming for equal muscle-building at all times is not as effective.

So for long term results such as you are looking for, I think going past 8 weeks is non-optimal. E.g., three 8 week cycles per year do better than two 12 week cycles, with total weeks "on" and total usage being identical in the two cases.

The two-week cycles do give really fast recovery. It's not that there is no HPTA shutdown, as there is during the two weeks, but the pituitary is immediately ready to respond to LHRH instead of so to speak having to be awakened from sleep (in more precise speaking, having greatly lowered LHRH responsiveness), and the testes are also immediately ready to respond to LH.

While if HCG is used in for example an 8 week cycle then the testes also are able to respond well to LH immediately, there's nothing that in like manner avoid reduced responsiveness of the pituitary.

As for the hypothalamus, I don't know if it's more responsive to discontinuance of increased androgen after 2 weeks than 8 or if it is the same either way.

Anyway, recovery is very fast, and with frontloading the body absolutely is ready for an excellent growth burst.

So I would suggest you look at your planning and if your training has parts in it where it seems to you, "You know, being 'on' for four weeks here, or 6 or 8, would help a whole lot, and there will be no problem having as a necessary consequence a longer run of 'off' weeks after this" then one or more longer cycles such as 4-8 weeks may be better than having the assistance taken away from a very productive training period.

On the other hand, in other parts of the training year 2 on / some number off may work better for you.

Since you have fast acting compounds you definitely have the option of short cycles.

Test E or Sustanon being cheaper and more convenient, I would use that in any longer cycles except for switching to propionate for the last week or two, for sake of quicker transition to levels allowing recovery.