Re: [Leica] Bokeh vs. Nukeh

[Krechtz@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/29/00 2:26:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
apbbeijing@yahoo.com writes:

<< my objection is that many people pick up on the
 good or bad reputation of a particular lens's bokeh without either
 understanding what it is nor learning to discern for themselves. That is
 where jargon and unmeasured terms are counterproductive. A bit like awarding
 whiskies a percentage rating: looks scientific, helps sell magazines, makes
 the writer look oh so brainy and expert, affects sales but doesn't have a
 whit to do with enjoying the product. >>

I agree that second-hand expertise can be worse than worthless.  As the old 
saying goes, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  Moreover, the 
preachings of a false prophet are far more potentially damaging than a lack 
of guidance.  OTOH, it has been wisely observed that it is the height of 
foolishness to disregard  the valid experience of others who know whereof 
they speak.  The challenge, of course, is to discriminate between the valid 
and the invalid, the true and the misleading.  That is, among other reasons, 
why I admire the efforts of people like Erwin Puts, who make an earnest and 
very substantial effort to maintain not only scientific but intellectual 
integrity in their methods of research, analysis and reporting.  
I also have subscribed to Consumer Reports for many years.  Decades ago, CR 
did a report on compact 35's which rated a certain Minolta lens as superior 
to the 40/2 Summicron.  Specific testing and evaluation criteria were not 
stated, rendering the evaluation meaningless.  However, I did not cancel my 
subscription in protest, nor did I unload my Leica equipment.  After all, I 
wouldn't buy a window fan or toaster oven without reading CR first.
Reports of empirical observations from trustworthy and authoritative sources 
are far and away the best practical alternative for information gathering in 
photography, as they have been since the beginnings of the art, or craft or 
science.  That is why I participate in the LUG.  
By the way, the household Siamese has always been my test target for 
evaluating lenses.  It's the laugh of the processing lab, and my wife begs me 
to stop disturbing his sleep.  I can tell you pretty much exactly what Ted is 
talking about in terms of resolution of fine detail, at least at the other 
end of the equation.  Strangely enough, the out of focus areas, at close 
range, can be revealing as well.  
On a more important subject, which single malts do you favor?

Joe Sobel