I primarily shoot with large aperture lenses. I love the soft bokeh that these prime lenses allow in my photography. That is my personal taste. Years ago when I became serious about photography, I started out shooting ONLY with strobes. I never shot in natural light and really wasn't interested in it. That is so funny to me now, because I have since reversed and primarily shoot in natural light, with reflectors and the occasional speed light or beauty dish. I prefer the soft romantic light of natural or constant lights. So. Many people have asked if I would do a side by side comparison of my three favourite lenses. So here they are, all side by side.
The results are interesting. I really love shooting with the 85 and use it often. I have always loved the bokeh on it and still do. I find focusing without the image stabilization on the 135 to be more difficult, and therefore the instances of blurry photos to be more often when shooting hand held. I used to think this about the 85, but when I switched from the 5D Mark II to the Mark III these issues disappeared. Nothing, however, beats the beauty of the blur, and crisp sharpness of the 200. I love my 200 and will always use it whenever possible. It is VERY heavy, however, and VERY expensive. It is also hard to use unless you have miles of space between you and your clients.
Bottom line? If you are dying for blur, you cannot beat the price of the 135! It is amazing, beautiful bokeh and sharpness for the price. You have to have a very steady hand, or use a tripod to guarantee sharp images, but it is absolutely worth it.