As for the Canon 70-200 f4/L having "terrible bokeh"...I've had mine for 3 years, and I love the bokeh. It is very smooth, at least on my crop camera. I don't notice much bokeh at the wider end, but near to 200mm, it seems very smooth to me. (Closeups of wildflowers, etc...really "pop").
For comparison, I've had my 135 f/2L even longer, for 4 years. Sure its bokeh is quite a bit smoother, loads stronger...and very lovely...but to call the 70-200 f/4's terrible...is wrong. It's more than nice enough, especially considering the price. Perhaps the IS version has bad bokeh...it certainly has a totally different element grouping and design. I wouldn't know.
Or it could be, that all of you who don't like yours, got a bad sample, and mine is the only good one? I'm ok with that.
The 135 f/2 spoils me. I personally don't feel the need to drop over $2k on a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. Sure they're nice, but for that money, I would just put that towards a 200 f/2, or something else. I would especially not buy one if I had the better noise performance of a full frame camera. At 3.5 pounds, it doesn't feel that much lighter than the 200 f/2...at least not to me. The longer, heavier supertelephotos...do indeed feel way more hefty to lug around, though. I think the relative short length of the 200 f/2 is a big factor here.
As for sharpness, it's also hard to fault my 70-200 f/4. There are some very slight left-to right sharpness oddities as it goes from around 90mm to 130mm...but other than that, it's pretty uniform. And even at 200mm...recently my work called for scaling an image up to 9000 x 6000, for a 20x30 print...and it looks fairly sharp even at that size. This shot was at f/4.5 at about 1/2000 shutter, ISO 320, "infinity" focus, AF on center point. The sharpness is barely going away by the bottom corners, not consequencial. If it had been, I could have "fixed" that in ACR easily enough...even before scaling it up.