06-30-2011, 02:53 PM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1309427989' post='9625']
Well, the DA* 300/4 has a sub-optimal bokeh. That was the reason for the non-HR rating.
We didn't test this aspect on the FA* because it just wasn't part of the test procedure at the time. Therefore it may well be that the FA* was just "lucky" to get the HR rating.
Klaus
[/quote]
Klaus
No disagreement here. You are spot on with that. Hard to attach a figure to it but yesterday I also noticed that the foreground (not the background) blur is a bit nervous.
all the best
schurl
Well, the DA* 300/4 has a sub-optimal bokeh. That was the reason for the non-HR rating.
We didn't test this aspect on the FA* because it just wasn't part of the test procedure at the time. Therefore it may well be that the FA* was just "lucky" to get the HR rating.
Klaus
[/quote]
Klaus
No disagreement here. You are spot on with that. Hard to attach a figure to it but yesterday I also noticed that the foreground (not the background) blur is a bit nervous.
all the best
schurl