On Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:00:08 GMT, Steffen Kluge wrote:
>According to Jeremy 1952 :

>>So, I began to wonder, what was all the fuss about with regard to the Leitz
>>and Zeiss lenses? Without wanting to ignite a war over whose brand is
>>"best," I really would like to know if there is any way to objectively
>>quantify the alleged superiority of the German lenses. As you can see, most
>>of the responses were vague.

>Among the few photographers I know who switched to Leica from
>other brands (mostly Nikon), the only commonly cited advantage of
>Leitz lenses (besides lots of various little bit and pieces of
>like and dislike here and there) was the out-of-focus rendering.
>Bokeh or whatever they call it.
>
>In terms of LPM there may be quite a few lenses by other makers
>out there that beat Leitz lenses in center sharpness by some
>margin, and there are probably a few that are just as good across
>the field - for a lot less money. But most cheaper brands seem to
>have a hard time eliminating those nasty out-of-focus artifacts,
>the price of super sharpness, that show structure and pattern
>where there shouldn't be any. I could imagine that a perfectly
>smooth rendition of OOF areas greatly enhances the subjective
>impression of depth in a photograph, and that seems to be what
>Leica users are after.
>
>For the record, I'm not partial to Leitz optics myself, I've
>never owned anything Leica. I'm just guessing here.

Yes, this aspect does vary, even within one lens
line - though I actually prefer "bad bokeh" for
the better DOF when I'm trying for universal focus,
and for shooting some kinds of images that depend on
"bad bokeh" (see www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sunplant1.html).
So, one must not assume that "good bokeh" is always
good, and that "bad bokeh" is always bad...;-) I often
do not like the look of images made with "good bokeh"
lenses - things can look a bit diffuse and soft for
me...