I know. You’re reading the headline and you’re thinking, of course there’s a need for fast lenses. Why wouldn’t we need them? The truth is we don’t need fast lenses. However, many photographers want them. Still, there’s a big difference between need and want.
I can already hear the clacking of keys from those who want to leave comments telling me I’m either A, stupid or B, crazy for even suggesting that we don’t need fast lenses. Hold on for one second though. Let’s take a look at fast lenses and how they have morphed from being a necessity to being a luxury in recent years.
In days gone by, you needed fast lenses
It wasn’t too long ago that film was the only format for photographers. In the early days of film, there weren’t many options when it came to film speeds. You had slow, slower and slower still. So, if you were a photojournalist, you needed fast lenses in case you were sent to shoot in dark locations. Without a fast lens, you’d be sunk as film can only be pushed so far.
So, fast lenses served a purpose. They were 100% needed to get the job done in low-light situations.
In the early part of the 20th century, fast lenses helped photographers overcome the limitations of the media they were using. It’s as simple as that. Fast lenses weren’t used to create a particular look or so that photographers could ooh and ahh over an extremely narrow depth of field. No, the lenses had one job, and they did it very well.
As we progressed through the 20th and 21st centuries, the roles that wide aperture lenses played began to change thanks to film with higher ISO ratings and easier-to-use flash technologies. Now, fast lenses are being re-imagined again in the digital age.
Fast lenses are status symbols
I have nothing against fast lenses at all, so don’t take this post as a bashing one. I think that in the right hands, and when used in the right situations, lenses with incredibly wide apertures can be used to create beautiful images. Especially portraits.
The problem now is that creative snobs and influencers will tell you that unless you shoot with the latest f/0.95, f/1.0, f/1.2 or f/1.4 lens you’re not a pro. So, people go out and buy these lenses just to have them and not because they need them. I see so many photographers walking around with fast lenses shooting everything wide-open when there’s simply no need to.
When it comes to low-light shooting, modern cameras with in-body image stabilization (IBIS) and advanced sensors have become low-light monsters. IBIS can help you keep your ISO low and when you do need to crank the ISO, well I can tell you that there’s not a sensor on the market today that produces bad images at ISO 6400. Even APS-C and micro four-thirds sensors perform well.
I have tested cameras (Nikon Z 50 and the Pentax K-3 III; read our review here) that can produce clean images at ISO 12,800. So, we can say that the original need for fast lenses has disappeared.
It’s all about the bokeh
Today, fast lenses are mainly used for one thing. Bokeh. For the last few years, almost every single portrait posted to social sites has one eye in focus and everything else blurred out. It’s a little odd to me as I prefer to shoot my portraits starting at f/2.8-3.5 so that I can at least ensure critical focus on the eyes (yes, plural).
So, we could say that fast lenses are needed to create a particular style of image. Even then, every lens is capable of producing bokeh to some degree if you know how to place your subject relative to your lens and the background. So again, fast lenses aren’t really needed, they’re surely wanted, though.
Creative license
Long gone are the days where you needed fast lenses to even get a usable image. Now, as we discussed above, we just want them to create a visual effect that only creatives give a darn about. I’ve never had a client come up to me and start a conversation about bokeh and bokeh balls. It just doesn’t happen. Creatives are the only people who pay attention to the area we don’t want others paying attention to. It’s absurd.
Fast lenses have stopped being a tool that’s needed for critical function and they have become one that’s used to be more creative, and that’s OK. Being creative is great. Just don’t fall into the trap of thinking you need to sell a body part to own a lens when a cheaper alternative can help you be just as creative.
Fast lenses = marketing hype
Modern fast lenses, to me, are more of a marketing showpiece than anything else (Nikkor Z 58mm f/0.95 S Noct anyone?). I understand why companies keep pumping these lenses out though. Ooh, look what we can do! Our new f/1.0 prime will make sure that one eye is razor sharp! You NEED this! It makes for great marketing copy.
Personally, I’d rather spend thousands of dollars on multiple cheaper lenses than one lens that’s a one-trick pony. I trust my abilities and I trust modern cameras when it comes to low-light performance enough now that ultra-fast lenses simply aren’t needed. This is just my two cents, though. We’re all different and I respect that.
How do you feel about fast lenses? Do you think there needs to be so many of them on the market and are they worth the money? Let us know in the comment section below.
I don’t think you are stupid or crazy and agree technology has reduced the need for fast glass.. I think it is ok for you to say you don’t need fast glass. But I think it is a different story for you to dictate what other peoples needs are, you may have a difference of opinion of how much noise is acceptable in your image or dislike the plastic look of NR software. Some people say they need a cat. Some people say they need drugs. Using your logic, some people are super crazy and say they need a dslr… Read more »
Actually, I wanted to write a comment too. However, after reading the existing ones, I fear that this will degenerate into a religious war. Btw. I wonder why more and more photographers are looking for vintage lenses when the fast modern ones deliver such great bokeh. 😉
I can’t speak for other photographers but for me. I bought a new camera Canon R5. I went to use my Sigma 50 1.4 DG HSM which I like very much on my old camera. On the new camera it produced pictures like this https://www.reddit.com/r/canon/comments/k509vi/anyone_getting_images_like_this_this_was_taken/ I could not figure it out, it happened in raw images so I started looking to replace it. Canon RF 50 1.2 $2299 too new for used ones. Canon EF 50 1.2 L $1200 used and not that good of a lens IMHO too soft bad bokeh. Sigma 50 1.4 Art $999 used $700 good… Read more »
Hi my friend. It’s a shame that you have these difficulties with the Sigma lens. Anyway, please note that I am not directing my comments against any person, only on the subject. Otherwise I would address the person concerned directly. However, our communication gave me the idea for my comment, and here in Germany there are a few magazines in which the topic regularly pops up. 😊
It is a shame, but it is the down side of buying 3rd party lenses. The good thing new sigmas have a lens dock where you can update the firmware and fix problems like this one. I was going to contact them to see if I could send it to them for a fix but the lens is so old that I don’t think they will do anything. I was just answering your question about vintage lenses. Some people still shoot film, some people still listen to music from a record player even though something superior is available. I think… Read more »
I vote for “marketing hype”.
On the other hand, looking and feeling like a real photographer does have value. I’m sure a lens on which you just dropped 2 grand does focus your attention somewhat.
Everyone has her/his own opinion. Whatever the case, I think this is currently a hype, fueled by marketing. There are sure to be professionals who need such fast lenses. For the vast majority, however, the standard lenses (f1,4 / f1,8) are sufficient in most situations. Btw. you can also rent these things if necessary and first test whether you actually need them. 🙂Have you all always good light 😉
I wrote the same on my blog this week. Background blurring is just a style. I can’t understand the point of a 35mm F1.8 lens. This is a lens for architecture or the street, or landscape.
I use my 35 1.4 for astro photography and it works great wide open for getting stars without star trails. Sigma just came out with a 35 1.2 and it is very sharp wide open. I would like to have one but it is double the amount of money of my 35 1.4 I am not a street photographer but I notice a lot of street photographers shooting a 35mm wide open at 1.4 Marketing hype or not, if people were not buying them, they would not produce them. The Sigma 35mm 1.4 art is selling for $669 for black… Read more »
Thanks Brett. You sure did start a firestorm. It seems some miss the point of an article talking about most don’t need vs no one needs this fast of a lens. I’ll bet if you were to check with “most” who have purchased such a lens, you won’t find too many who have taken their best shots with that lens and wide open. I also wonder how many that purchase such a lens look at their photos on anything other than their phones, iPads or maybe computer screen at the most. I shoot Canon so I was unaware of the… Read more »
Fast glass is heavy glass. Heavy glass is a pain to schlep thru airports and drag along. There have been mighty improvements in processing and more are on the horizon. In less than 5 years, AI will improve process to a point we can only dream of. We see that with focus on animal/birds/bugs eyes. Abberations be gone! No need for a lens faster than f4 for almost everything.
Along the same lines, one could argue that paint and brushes are no longer needed since the invention of Photography.