The kid doesn't look f/2. Bokeh is harsh.
The ice-cream guy looks totally 135L. That's the look.
What I find most un-impressive is that none of those are your photos mr.privatebydesign. Lets see your photos comparing these lens.
Now here is my input. Which of these were shot with a macro and the 135L?
So far you have committed to two images from eight, I wonder if you got any right from eight, I'll tell you which of my post were which in a couple of days, Plamen will have to tell us his.
Why would you find my lack of images impressive? That is such a strange thing to say, through this entire thread I have tried to get you to post images that display that "unique look" only the 135 can give you, do you think the "compression" of my 100 is different to others? That my lenses dof is better? I have also already pointed out that I don't have the 135 in EF, only FD. You are the one who has kept saying "only the 135 can do that", "35% more compression", "twice as much light", well, show me, because so far you have failed.
As for your four images, judging by the horrible bokeh I would say images one and four are with the 135, images two and three with the 100, assuming it isn't a trick question.
Don't be dumb. When I see a 135L image, I know it and will point it out.
As for you, you have no photos with either lens thus I hold your opinion irrelevant as you haven't shown you've used the equipment.
Horrible bokeh? hahahahaha. You are very wrong, all of them are 135L images. Stick that in your lens mount and smoke it.