100 f2 and 1.4x converter vs 135L f2

I am considering selling my 100-300 4.5 (too slow) and getting either a 135lL f2, or a 100 f2 and a 1.4 x converter. (or the 100 macro and 1.4x converter).

The positives I see in regards to the 100 f2 (or 100 macro) and 1.4 is that I can use the 1.4 with a variety of lenses, and future telephoto lenses. The 140, 2.8 combination when using the 1.4 is fairly fast. The macro would be slower, but have the obvious macro capabilities

The cost of the 135L f2 vs teleconverter 1.4 and 100 f2 are about equal.

Posts and articles indicate that these are all good lenses. Any thoughts?

Oh, to add to this, I do note that the 100 2.8 macro can't be used with the 1.4 unless an extension tude is used.

In contrast to the 135/2L you cannot use original Canon converters on

the 100/f2 or 100/2.8 macro and third party alternatives have a

medicore reputation at best. The 135/2L seems to be the more

interesting option IMO. When combined with the Canon 2x you should

have a 270/f4 with a quality that should still outperform your old

zoom at the long end (just a guess though).

Mario: If you can swing the extra cost, the 70-200/2.8L is a mighty

nice lens, and it accepts tele-extenders.

Mario, you do realize that the 100/tube/1.4x combo will NOT focus at

infinity?