Not to get into an argument, but for a crop camera, I would find a 135/2 to be uncomfortably long if it were the only focal length I had available. Shooting through the glass from the corner (which for most community rinks around here is the only viable option) with my 100/2 on a 70D, I can take a picture of a bit of net, the goalie in the crease, and just a bit of ice outside the crease. Too often, what should have been an exciting picture of a goal or save has just the tip of the shooter's stick coming into the frame, with only the goalie in shot. If I try to get the shooter, there is no net for reference. 135mm would help for mid-ice shots, but nothing close in.
If this is really to be the OP's go-to lens for all of hockey, soccer, and portraits with a crop camera, a 70-200/2.8 is really the only choice.
Or one could go with my solution of a 100/2 for hockey and a 200/2.8 for field sports (and the odd rink with tiered seating and no netting). I don't regret this since they are great lenses and have a combined cost lower than a 70-200/2.8 IS ii, but I often finding myself wishing I could zoom both ways in hockey, and zoom to a shorter length in baseball.