85 1.8 vs 200 2.8L for portraits on APS-H?

My best bet would be probably the 135L but I don't have the cash.
I love thin DOF. I'd shoot portraits outdoors 99% of the time. I feel like it is time to buy an L and while 85mm is a nice focal length, it would be portrait only but the 200L could be a capable sports lens too.
I use a 1D Mk II.

I like longer focal length potraits, but you have to be a ways back to make the 200 work for you, especially on a 1.3 crop body. Some people can work comfortably that way, others lose the intimacy. The 85 is probably a more useful portrait lens.

So you're looking at 260mm distance? I just threw on my TC and checked it out....man I dunno, that doesn't seem practical if you shoot anything over a half body shot, even outdoors.

I'm sure some technical member could calculate it for you, but my g/f is 5'9" and I felt like i was back a good 35 feet to get a full body shot.

I agree with the others: 200mm is too long to use as my main portrait lens. I'd rather go 85/1.8 or 100/2.0 for now.

If you're considering the 200L then i'd save for the 135L imho... the price difference isn't sooo big that you should "settle for" the 200L.

I teach a class in photo portraits. All my students only use MF for portraits and myself as well. Can you handle that? If so, there is a whole world of wonderful portrait lenses waiting for you. Some are not even expensive. Check my gear list for ideas. Gene

200mm is too long at times even for a half body what more if it's full body?

I think I'll buy the 85 first , then the 200 and after that I might sell the 85 and buy the 135.

For the price of two good filters, you can get the lens you want. Look around the house and sell off a few things you want less than the 135L.