Outside portrait lens..Torn between 4 options

I am looking for some opinions on the purchase of a new lens.

I currently use my Canon 24-70 & 50 1.8 in my studio. I shoot with a 40D & 20D for backup. My new lens will be used for portrait sessions outside. I am looking for longer reach than the 70mm.

The 4 I have narrowed it down to are:

Canon 100 f/2
Tokina 50-135 f/2.8
Canon 70-200 f/4L
Canon 70-200 f/4L IS

What are your thoughts on these? Would the 100mm of the Canon be really much more distance? Would I really need 200mm for portraits?

I don't shoot 100% with a tripod outside, I like to get down to the clients level so weight might be an issue handholding. (camera shake?)

I have had the 7-2 f/4L and sadly had to sell it, but I did enjoy it. A tad long for me to hold steady at slower SS. Thinking that the IS would be a must.

I am quite anal about IQ. I like to get it "in camera" opposed to spending hours with photoshop. I like the colors, contrast & clarity that I get with the 24-70!!

Anyway.....what do you guys think? One of the less expensive lenses, or save for the IS?

I would like to purchase the lens sooner than later. The 7-2 with IS will take me at least 4 months to save for.

Thanks for any opinions you can offer.

Kath

If you have the money, get the 70-200 f4 IS, no question.

If not the non-IS. If in between, the 135L.

Outdoor portraits and nothing else..... without breaking the bank

Either 85/f1.8, 100/f2, 135L

I would chose the focal length based on what is more comfortable. The IQ is more than good enough with all these lenses, imo.

I shoot portraits, 1/2 body or tight with a Tamron 28-75 indoors (mostly at 70-75), a 70-200 f4 IS outdoors and I just bought the 85/1.8 for, primarily, outdoor portraits and better DOF control.

The 85 is usuable for me, indoors, although the extra 10mm over the Tamron seems to make a noticeable difference to me as far as space between the subject and me. The 100 would be very tight and the 135 pretty much unusable. I couldn't care less if, technically, it may be the best of the bunch when I can't back up enough to get the shot. I decided on the 85, and am happy with my decision.

I'm still going through the archives.

I was kinda leaning towards the zooms (versatility) .....but just went through the 135L thread.

Thinking this might be the lens for me. Love the bokeh, color, clarity, everything!!

As long as you are comfortable with the distance, and always have the space, go for it. As much as I don't like to be in my subjects face, I also don't like to have to shout at them from afar

I also shoot, sometimes in fairly busy outdoor areas and narrow alleyways or othe tight spots.

Too much space between the subject, in the first case, and you'll have more interruptions with people passing between you and the subject that you may soon give up and go for a less interesting but quiter place.

Alleyways are often not wide enough to get the framing you want with a longer lens. I'm just throwing out some things to consider. They may not apply at all to you.

Question...Why do you need so much reach for outdoor portraits?

I'd look into primes and the 85 1.8...I have it and it's a killer lens. Very affordable too. I take pics of our 2 year old with all day outside...inside too. I definitely prefer it for portraits over my 70-200 and I'm close to trading my zoom for a 135L. Primes just pop IMO.

I do most of my outdoor sessions at my home, large yard. I want to be able to get separation from client and background. (bokeh) I have been using my 24-70 but want to get a little more distance.

Had the 85 1.8 and will most likely replace it in the future. (after this lens)

Thanks for everyones help so far.