"Interesting. Several user reviews also said the flash's inboard card was as good as some of the bounce cards, etc."
Nonsense, the built in bounce card is next to useless. For really good modifiers I can't recommend the Rouge series of flags, deflectors, snoots etc enough, though I don't like their gels. And they have a great value clearance page http://www.expoimaging.com/index2.php?cPath=21&osCsid=5r1hn15rhmmhp67hgi67uj6pe7
Also do a search for "the black foamie thing" he is the master of on camera bounce flash, a real inspiration.
As for the images, yes, one and three are the 85 f1.2, I think the bokeh, which is a purely subjective thing, looks pretty bad in both of them. But it can often look amazing, bokeh is affected by so many more things than just aperture shape and size.
Thank you for the info! I looked over the Rogue products. Also, the "gotlux" bounce diffuser looked interesting. I'm sure you'll say it sucks, haha.
Well I'm glad I matched the lenses to their shots...Chuck agreed with me. The angle of view kind of gives it away...but that just goes to show ya...that there's a noticeable difference between 85mm and 100mm. So these people that ask to choose between the 85L and the 135L, haven't thought at all about the angle of view they want...because they kind of don't have the photographer's "artistic eye"...if you ask me...which you didn't...haha.
I don't agree that the bokeh looks bad. Maybe not extremely interesting, but not bad. I've seen "bad bokeh"...haha. My Sigma 120-400 can produce hashy bokeh in the transition area (but only when viewing at 1:1...and really only when shot towards the long end of the zoom)...so it's still not at all a deal breaker.
Tonight I shot some fawns running in my yard, ISO 25,600 at f/2 with my 135L, 1/640 sec. The autofocus worked...barely...on the 6D (it was quite dark, single shot, center point). What I really need is a 90-160 f/1.0 zoom with IS, made by Sigma...for under $5000! Or else an array of flashes mounted on softboxes as big as the sky...haha!