sandro9mm wrote in post #11755698
hm, perhaps 'confusing' is a bad choice of word... with bokeh I always meant quality and the amount together. No need to separate these concepts in my head. Obviously f/2.8 will have more bokeh, but how pleasant f/4 bokeh looks depends both on amount and quality and this is exactly what I was asking for.
Bokeh refers only to the quality of the out of focus areas, not to the amount of blur (ie. the depth of field). Bokeh is subjective.
It's meaningless to say that the f/2.8 lens will have "more" bokeh than the f/4. That's like saying one steak has "more good taste" than another; it either tastes better or it doesn't. One doesn't quantify quality in that way.
The f/2.8 will have the capacity for shooting with a shallower depth of field than the f/4, of course, but the subjective quality of the resulting blur may be better, worse, or the same as the f/4. I've found it to be about the same (and very good on both lenses).
To use another example, compare the blur created by the 50/1.8 and the 50/1.2L. When set to the same f/stop, these lenses will have the same DoF, but no one would claim that the bokeh is equivalent.
Bokeh = quality of the blur, not the DoF.