Worry less about the word "bokeh," and the endless arguments about it, and instead go as you wanted to, to a local univeristy or museum or whatever, and LOOK at the pictures...
You'll see that some of them inevitably have a smoother, nicer look to their out of focus areas.. Some of them do not. This is easy enough to see, notice, and enjoy.. its not so easy to define. Is it not a big part of the picture? Perhaps to you its not, but it is to me.. its essential to me. I thrive on minimal depth of field, I crave it, and without, most of my pictures would suffer, as the way I take a picture, I like to take one single element, and stand it out against everything else. Perhaps its not important to you, it is to me. As such, bokeh, as irritatring a concept as it may be, is of prime importance. Its only now that I'm becoming aware of it as a potential shortcoming in the lenses, and unfortuantly for me (and myt wallet), I can't dismiss it so easily as you do. Different strokes for different folks. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com <-> photography and portfolio.
