For those of you who have both lenses like I do, which do you prefer for portraits?
I love the 100L dearly, for it was my first L lens. I love its uses for macro/portraits and how ridiculously sharp it is. It was always mounted on my camera since the day I got it. I bought it mainly for macro and portraits. None of my other lenses came even close...
That is until I purchased the 70-200 II. I wasn't really shopping around for this lens, but I had to jump on the sale that Canon had last Christmas. Obviously this was my go-to lens shooting collegiate sports. The lens is as sharp as a prime and extremely versatile. My macro was suitable for indoor sports like volleyball and basketball, but the 70-200 is more useful and I got a lot more shots out of it.
However, I am torn between the two lenses for portraits. Obviously clients would be more impressed with the 70-200 II thanks to its size and color. The 100L looks much less imposing, but is tack sharp and produces creamy smooth bokeh. I love using the prime because it draws less attention and I love moving around to frame my shots. The 70-200 II is so sharp and versatile that my 100L is really only being used for macros =[
Again, my question is which lens would you choose for portraits? Is there a benefit to using the 100L over the 70-200?