[PuxaVida]

...

Also, just like how we frame the subject equally even when using lenses of different focal lengths, it's fair to say that a fast lens produces smoother backgrounds for a particular framing than a slower one, even if the slower one is actually/scientifically a better bokeh lens, don't you think?



GTW

I personally use "pleasant" for the bokeh quality. And by pleasant I consider the "nature" of the blur more than the "amount" of it. I believe the amount of the blur highly depends on the size of the entrance pupil. So, depending on the subject and background distance, you have more playground with the fast lenses (I'm not sure when it comes to the front bokeh). But the nature of blur depends on the (corrected) spherical aberrations. The image of CoC is almost homogenious in terms of brightness (no harsh outlinings or no harsh brightness transitions for example). In the bokeh test shots of this lens, the blurred highlight disks in background seem to be exceptional in that manner. And I think if the the word "creamy" could be used for the combination of both amount & nature of the bokeh, the bokeh of this lens is "creamy".



However, it still confuses me, howcome the statement "true APO lenses, which have less (or no) spherical aberration, don't show LoCAs and they're usually slower primes in tele field" could be true. I can't explain this to myself with regard to this lens. You guys have any idea?



Serkan