Canon 135mm f/2 L or 200mm f/2.8 L II?( main purpose: portrait with background blur)

Vote for the 135L 2.0

I want both

Definitely the 135L.

Both without IS
Portraits and background blur !
you can get this from the 50mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.8 with a less price

6D + EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

The bokeh should look about the same from both lenses. The 200mm would blur the background a bit more. As long as you have sufficient light to use a short shutter speed, and you have sufficient room, the 200mm is a better choice. Either of these will be a problem, the 135mm would be the better pick.

Walkundertherain wrote in post #16462247
I own two bodies now 60D and 5D Mark II, I don't have any tele lenses now

i think you need to test and try this telephoto zoom
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

200/2.8 > 135/2. The 200/2.8 will give more blur when the background is far behind the subject. If the subject is in a croud where the background is close, the f/2 of the 135/2 will win out and do a better job of blurring the background.

The quality of that blur, the bokeh, is slightly better on the 135/2, but the 200/2.8 is no slouch.

135L has better bokeh, for sure. Smoother, creamier and deals with more complex backgrounds better.

I have both lenses. Although the 135 is slightly better it does not justify the difference in cost if all your looking for is better background blur. You can get a good used 200mm for about $500 where it's pretty hard to get a 135 in good condition for anything close to that. However the f2 on the 135 is a lifesaver in low light especially for action (I use mine in a hockey arena). For just bokeh go for the 200 and save yourself a few bucks.

I prefer the 135L over the 200/2.8L.

The 135L complements the 70-200/2.8L IS II better which is a lens a lot of photographers will consider buying sooner or later.

When using the 135 without flash, you have to be very conscious of your handholding technique. I find that even if I concentrate, I have shot-to-shot sharpness variation due to camera shake starting at 1/200. Notice I didn't say blur, just variation. I can hand hold the lens and usable results down to about 1/125, but even that is dicey. So based on my experience with the 135L, I'd say 135 is the longest focal length that can be effectively hand held without IS or flash. If you want maximum background blur, get an 85L. The cheapest lens that gives more background blur than the 85L is the 200 f/2. The 85L really isn't that expensive when you sit down and think about how awesome it is.

I would get the 135 f/2.

If you later feel you might want to add the 200 f/2.8, just get the 1.4 extender to add onto your 135 f/2. The result will be, on full frame, a 189mm, f/2.8, sort of. You can get the II version (not the newest) for $269 used in 9/10 condition at B&H.