Yes, that's true of your description of just what it is, and it does not need to be endlessly embellished with bullshit parading as facts, as is so common.
When "photographers" rattle on and on and on about bokeh (to a nauseating degree on photo.net), AND use this as the sole determinant of a lens's suitability to their needs (above all else, incredibly), they've gone truly off the deep end into rubbish talk. Canon published an article quite a decade back about how users of its TS-E lenses were critical of those lens's bokeh with movements engaged. Oh really!? Truth be told, and as Canon pointed out in subsequent demonstrations, bokeh cannot be accurately observed where tilt is applied to alter the plane of focus/peg or depth of field, yet all these users (showing, I might add, examples of their work which had a complete lack of foundation knowledge in photography) were throwing acid at what they considered were dud lenses. Quite a revelation it just have been to knock them into line. I think this was around 1997 in a Canon Professional Services newsletter (I still have a few in storage from that era). Photographers needs to consider a very long list of qualities of a lens which they will back up with experience and foundation knowledge. For me, bokeh has never been one of them, not even in the landscape context. Not even in the portraiture or sport context.
Last edited by Poisson Du Jour; 02-11-2014 at 07:07 PM. Click to view previous post history.