Den enda direkt källa jag kan komma på att ange (den enda jag hittar tillbaka till) är rörsletts utlåtande om ZF 50/1,4:
"The biggest surprise occurred when I tried to evaluate the bokeh of the ZF lens. Let me summarise this by stating that at f/1.4, the Zeiss exhibited a weird or downright ugly bokeh with pronounced double lines and harsh edges. The transition from sharp to unsharp is abrupt. The Nikkor on the other hand delivered pleasantly soft-looking backgrounds without any harshness to them. Stopping further down the picture tended to change, thus the Nikkor gets harder and harsher and the ZF availed itself of its very circular aperturte to give less harsh backgrounds than the Nikkor. But having heard a lot of hype regarding the alleged superiority of the ZF line in terms of bokeh, I have to admit that the Zeiss lens was a clear disappointment. The reason for having a superfast lens is amongst others to use it set more or less wide open. I quickly stopped using the ZF 50 in that fashion and decided not to keep the lens for myself. I give the ZF 50 due credit for its sharpness qualities, but be warned that its bokeh can give nasty surprises if you shot the lens wide open. At the very least, do try out the lens before you commit to purchasing it."
Ett utlåtande som jag sett en hel del bilder styrka måst jag medge.
Och givetvis är detta ett mycket dåligt betyg i mina ögon då jag nästan uteslutande plåtar på bländare 1.4-2.8 (med småbild dvs...technikan är en anna historia) och svar varje gång förhållanden tvingar mig blända ner. (Snälla börja ta in efke ort25 och kb25 ingen Photax!)
Men som sagt, det är en fråga om tycke och smak i mångt och mycket.
