Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Yes, I am a fan of nice and smooth out of focus areas. I like this in the older lenses much better than the newer lenses. But I will probably like something that many people dislike, and vise versa. I like Jazz, classical, R&B, Rock & Roll, but I hate Dixieland. Studying the physical properties of lenses such as sharpness, coma, centering, etc, is cut and dried. Attempting to explain the "Bokeh" of a lens is, basically, impossible unless you are Japanese and have been studying the "look" of Bokeh for a long time. I have read the (translated) Japanese lens reports where Bokeh is evaluated. There is a whole language built around the phenomena. In order to understand it, you have to have a working history with Bokeh. I didn't understand it. To put it in perspective, Félix, please explain in words that all LUGgers will understand, what the Bokeh of the Tri-Elmar looks like. It is much more than "a smooth blurred background" or a "harsh blurred background." Erwin is correct in making the simplest possible statements. Such as "old lenses have a better Bokeh than new lenses." Jim At 11:46 PM 5/29/01 +0200, Félix López de Maturana wrote: > >But Jim, whatever bokeh could be, subjetive or not, you trust the Erwin >statement that old lenses had better one? > >Kind regards > >Félix > >PS I think that is in fact the nicest blurred background available to stand >out the main subject. As far as nicest is not objective cannot be measured. >But *it* is of interest for instance to get nicer portraits.