> can someone smarter/more educated than me explain to me why practically I would prefer this over a computational solution? Practical effects always feel bett

> can someone smarter/more educated than me explain to me why practically I would prefer this over a computational solution? Practical effects always feel better over computational ones - in terms of feedback. Which is weird to say because it only really happened for me after digital cameras gave instant previews with zoom & I could tweak/click while getting to know some new hardware. I did some digital tilt-shifts and then played around with a manual shifted lens once - seeing what you click is so "tactile" (& the bar for it will shift was more computation can be done in preview). The thing is that the digital thing is still guessing depth with some gradient map, particularly at such a long focal length. The reason a lot of the in-app portrait modes have improved massively is because there are secondary depth sensors which fill in the data that is needed to compute a good looking depth map. > why someone else beside the person in question would buy another lease I can't think of a single reason except to mess with things till you get the photo you want :) I wasted a bunch of time with a very cheap (but great) Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D for different bokehs during a party shoot, which turned out to be a fun project "makeable" for a tutorial I was doing later. And eventually turned to a lensbaby bokeh punchable + a lot of vinyl clips of random shapes (mostly Om/ॐ shapes for temple pictures). I'm sure I could get a digital solution for that, but it involved a lot less work to punch a pattern and go nuts with it. [1] - https://www.flickr.com/photos/t3rmin4t0r/4362410419/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/t3rmin4t0r/4362410419/