Here's some DOF and bokeh comparisons, food for thought.
85mm F1.8 on a full frame with our daughter.
135 F2L on a full frame with the girls.
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GAWAWF IMG_9344 by Martin Wise, on FlickrIMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/YBbLLY IMG_8458 by Martin Wise, on Flickr
50mm F1.2 on APS-C with the daughter.
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Js2CiW DSCF8821 copy by Martin Wise, on Flickr
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/23MvHgE DSCF8698 copy by Martin Wise, on Flickr
Now honestly, had I not pointed out which was the 135L, some folk may not even be able to distinguish it. The 135L doesn't automatically make things magical. You have to have the right background matter (sun and leaves are really not good honestly), a lot more background distance, and more working distance. But my point was to show that these 135L photos are not special. The lens doesn't make it anymore special than another fast telephoto. They all crush depth of field. My point is just that there's more to the photo than having the dreamy background lens, like the 135L. Having used all kinds of fast long glass, personal preference, I let the 135L go. I let all the long lenses go. I'd rather shoot a short, really fast piece of glass, and be 6~7 feet away for a full body. But, again, that's personal preference. I can use it everywhere, rather than only outside with tons of distance to work with.
But again, I can't stress enough, the 135L doesn't automatically make magic. My photos are just snaps and they're really not much different from an 85mm F1.8 above.