Canon 135mm f2 and 70-200 f2.8 IS?

I shoot primarily with a 5D II and we also have a 7D. I really like to use my 70-200 f2.8 IS (MK I) for portraits, but I'm considering adding a 135 f2 L. If I do this, I will likely sell the 100 L macro and just add some tubes for occasional closeup shots.

Any use both the 70-200 f2.8 IS and the 135 L? Do you feel they are redundant. I hate to spend $1K on only 1 focal length to gain 1 stop of depth of field, but the pics from this lens seem to really be special. My other prime is the 35 L, which I really like. I don't think I would consider selling the 70-200 as it is so versatile.

Have a look at the ISO 12233 crops, you can vary the apeture and angle of view of either lens to check the sharpness. I would say they are pretty close, I don't think you would see an absolute difference. For example at 135mm f/5.6 I can't see any difference in the images, the 135 L is a little bit sharper wide open.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …&SampleComp=0&F​LI=0&API=0

The IS from 100L is wonderful which you will not get it from 135L

The IS is great on the 100L, but I have a 70-200 f2.8 with IS for low light and portraits at 100 f2.8. Another option is the 85L, but that one cost 2X as much and has slower focusing.

Just trying to justify owning both the 70-200 and 135.

chalib_alex wrote in post #9934907
The IS from 100L is wonderful which you will not get it from 135L

True, but 135 is nice and so is f/2 which you will never get out of the 100L... Depends on intended use.

I love the 135, but it cannot replace my 70-200. I also feel the 70-200 could never replace the 135. Both have a place and both get used.

I think I'm going to keep the 100 L and my 70-200, then add the 135 L later. Seems like all of these have their place.