The war between manufacturers when it comes to creating and selling fast lenses is as brutal and bloody as the megapixel wars that are still raging today; however, the truth is we don’t need fast lenses, it’s just that many photographers want them, and there’s a big difference between need and want.
I can already smell the smoke coming from keyboards of angry creators who want to leave comments telling me I’m crazy for even thinking that we don’t need lenses with super fast apertures. However, this is a topic that needs to be discussed. So, let’s all take a minute to collect ourselves before diving into fast lenses and how they have morphed from being a necessity to a luxury item that might be wanted but not necessarily needed in this day and age.
A walk down memory lane
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 (let’s face it, only us creators drool over bokeh) could ooh and ahh over an extremely narrow depth of field. No, the fast lenses during this time period had one job: To overcome the limitations of slow film. And the lenses did the job well.
As we progressed through the 20th and 21st centuries, wide aperture lenses’ roles began to change thanks to film with higher ISO ratings and easier-to-use flash technologies. These technologies allowed photographers to use their fast lenses with a little more creative license. Fast forward to now, and fast lenses are being re-imagined in the digital age.
Cold hard truth: Fast lenses are nothing more than status symbols
I have nothing against fast lenses at all, so don’t take this post as one where I’m just bashing them. I own several fast lenses myself. In the right hands, and when used in the right situations, lenses with incredibly wide apertures can be used to create beautiful images.
The problem now is that creative snobs and influencers will tell you that you’re not a professional unless you shoot with the latest f/0.95, f/1.0, f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses It’s utter rubbish. This hyperbole creates a problem, and so, people go out and buy these lenses that cost an absolute fortune because someone they don’t even know told them they need them.
The result is that I, and many others, see many photographers walking around with fast lenses shooting everything wide-open when there’s simply no need to. If that’s what they like, more power to them, but shooting wide open all the time is overrated. More often than not, the shot that was wanted will be missed because of the razor-thin depth of field.
But what about low-light photography?
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 need to crank the ISO, 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. However, it would be remiss of me to say that in very low light situations where your client wants you to keep your ISO low, fast lenses can help. Still, those times are probably few and far between for most photographers.
It’s all about the dreamy bokeh
Today, fast lenses are mainly used for one thing. Bokeh. For the last few years, almost every portrait posted to a social site 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 to ensure critical focus on the eyes (yes, plural). However, that’s just me; I know everyone is different. However, when an image shot wide open is done right, it can be breathtaking.
So, we could say that fast lenses are needed to create a particular image style. However, every lens is capable of producing bokeh to some degree. Creating bokeh is easy 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
Gone are the days when you needed fast lenses to get a usable image. Now, as we discussed above, we want them to create a visual effect that only creatives care about. I’ve never had a client start a conversation with me about bokeh, specular highlights and bokeh balls. It just doesn’t happen. Photographers are the only people who pay attention to the area we don’t want others to pay attention to. It’s absurd.
Fast lenses have stopped being a tool needed for critical function, and they have become one that’s used to be more creative, and that’s OK. Being creative is great. However, don’t fall into the trap of thinking you need to sell a body part to own a fast lens when a cheaper alternative can help you be just as creative.
Fast lenses are great for marketing hype
Modern fast lenses, to me, are more of a marketing showpiece than anything else. I understand why companies keep pumping these lenses out, though. Ooh, look what we can do! Our new f/0.95 prime will ensure that one eye (or eyelash if you’re not super careful) is razor sharp! You NEED this! This nonsense makes for excellent marketing copy. Unfortunately, many fall for it.
Personally, I’d rather spend thousands of dollars on multiple cheaper lenses than on one lens that’s a one-trick pony. I trust my abilities, and I trust modern cameras when it comes to low-light performance. Now, ultra-fast lenses — for myself at least — aren’t needed. Still, this is just my two cents. We’re all different, and I appreciate and respect that.
By all means, do what you need to do for yourself and your creative style. However, be aware that just because someone says you need something, it doesn’t mean it’s true. Watch out for those wolves in sheep’s clothing; they could end up costing you a lot of money. How do you feel about fast lenses? Do you think there needs to be so many of them hitting the market? Are they worth the money? Let us know in the comment section below.
Actually, what really wasn’t needed was this useless article.
There is a reason fast glass is the most expensive, and it’s not status. It’s the dreamy effect. The separation. Denial isn’t rebuttal. It’s either cluelessness, or a sad effort to stir the pot.
I disagree with you. Super fast lenses are not needed nowadays in 99.99% of cases. Recently, I took my old Minolta with film and realised how bad those old cameras were without fast lens. On the opposite, with digital camera and high ISO ability it does not matter. If you want to separate objective just use higher focal range and you get it. The very fast lenses are huge, externally expensive and bulky. I prefer light set rather big and bulky one. In Macro I use f8 or f16, in portrait I use f4 but longer focal length like 85… Read more »
Sometimes you can only back up so far, or get so close, so you can’t always just swap a lens to get the separation you want.
Your dreamy effect is usually inappropriate and emphasising the subject against the background is not only possible with slower lenses but can be achieved with lighting.
Super thin depth of field is mostly a gimmick of interest only to other photographers and has become a cliche.
Oof, critical hit to the amateurs. Bokeh is a good starter tool for isolation subjects in composition before you know how to do it with better contrasts than the contrasts of DoF, but you’re right.
If far away you don’t get a razor thin DOF, but you can definitely get some contrast. I guess it’s a matter of what you’re shooting… As always. :-)
What is not needed is a comment post denying the value of this discussion. I think this article has a lot of value for all photographers. It seems about 90% of YouTube “photography” videos are all hardware reviews with little to do with actually making beautiful images or story telling. I started in photography with film SLR’s where 800 ASA was fast, and you pushed to get another stop or two. By today’s standards, it’s a wonder anyone was able to produce a good image with those limitations. The author is correct – today’s digital cameras can shoot at amazingly… Read more »
Agree, sometimes the OOF areas are so much that the picture lacks some environment and ambient to it
Brett, I couldn’t agree with you more. It’s just more of the minutia rabbit hole that slick marketing sends creators into. As you said, “I have never had a client comment about the blur in the background.” The only reason I can see for owning one is for low-light situations where you are trying to keep the ISO low—which is kind of like, when I switched out the lightbulbs in my house for LED, my wife still complains about the bill even though we are saving money—it will never end. If you already own one or several fast lenses, you… Read more »
The only time I want a super blurry background is for flowers and plants but often have to stop down to get more in focus anyway. And for landscape I see pros using focus bracketing to get everything in focus. ( with m43rds that’s less of a problem) I have f4 lenses and only rarely do I need to switch to a fast prime.
Fast lenses don’t have to be super expensive (what’s fast these days anyway?).
I have one “fast” (F/1.4) prime lens specifically for museum displays, interiors & limited astrophotography. The rest of my kit are zooms – are any zooms really “fast” these days?
“Panssonic Lumis S5 at ISO 12800, lens at f/5.6. Any complaints? Didn’t think so.”
You might want to fix that.
Thanks, Sean. All fixed. We are human and do make mistakes from time to time.
All the best,
Brett
So to the article; what a silly writer?you chide telling us we are in no need of .01 etc f stop lenses, but conveniently forget that they(commentators/press) do the same about megapixels on cameras. And whilst we all know we don’t need them, people will be definition always seek them out! How silly of you! If people are going to be offered the best in a budget they can afford, then they are going to go for it. Not withstanding the sweet spot gets better? In fact having wasted my be time reading the complete article, i see you contradict… Read more »
Marvellous, eye-opening article. My compliments to you to have explained things in such a simple manner!!!!!!
I agree with what you’re saying, but up to a point. If you’re using mostly zoom lenses in order to be more versatile (and I’m not talking here only commercial shooting, but more for the sake of photography in general) lenses with constant f2.8 to f4 throughout the entire zoom range provide(d) the right balance between price and the ability to have some nice out of focus areas when you want it. But recently with the advance of mirrorless systems I can see that we’re getting more and more lenses with absurd apertures at the long end. Especially with the… Read more »
It was a toss up between a 24-70 f2 8 or 24-105 f4. I decided the Sigma 24-105 f4 was cheaper and had lots going for it. Even the Northrup’s endorsed it!. It is my go to walkabout lens and bokeh isn’t my main priority. My dslr can easily create clean images at 6400 in low light, so I have the best combo for my budget.
Maybe this will change when I upgrade to a new camera body, but at least on my admittedly aging a7 ii, a fast aperture does come in handy for the sake of light gathering. I shot an event (as an amateur, so no fancy equipment like flashes) this weekend, and I sure needed both ISO 6400 and f/1.4 to produce usable images.
I will definitely agree with you on the depth of field, though, even f/2 is often too shallow for me.
For me, the speed of lenses is needed for sepertation and low light sport venues .. so for me this cry out, is one for attention. But I understand the idea
Most of my lenses are f2.8 but I seldom shoot below f4. My only faster lenses is a nifty fifty f1.8 which I seldom use.
Of course, those bokeh addicts who acted as if they’re photographer need to get their daily fix.
I should add that old film SLR cameras were requiring high aperture lenses to help manual focussing, especially in low light conditions. This need also disappeared with autofocusing system and with mirrorless EVF.
I like to shoot action at high shutter speeds. So the faster lens keeps the ISO reasonable, as long as the focus motor keeps up. But while your point is valid it can be made about anything that isn’t a necessity to life. Most everything is about wanting.
Yep, IBIS is great for stopping camera shake, but doesn’t stop other people or things moving. I do event photography, often in poor light I have no control over, and I’m often shooting f/2.8 or faster in those situations to keep the ISO in check.
Hey Brett nice article. I am a writer and photographer myself and while I also have some fast glass I tend towards the lenses that allow me to get the shot I want in a given moment. I photograph cars and while I do sometimes shoot for boken in detail images I find it often more important to have the entire car in focus which means fast lenses used at maximum aperture are not needed. I shoot Fujifilm X system and the Pentax 645Z cameras and with the 645 sensor size I had to drastically adjust to using smaller apertures… Read more »
Thanks so much for the comment. I appreciate it. Unfortunately, nastiness, as you know, comes with the territory. They don’t bother me. I let other people have their ignorance and disdain for others shine through.
All the best,
Brett
tell that to sport and BIF photographers …
indeed an useless article, saying nothing new or different or insightful
fast lenses just for bokeh or a sign of status? lol
well, glad to know – so you say – that your business is doing fine
your line of thinking…ehhhh, not so much. stay taking pictures and away of posting useless and pointless blogs
Perhaps not insightful for you; however, for beginners who tend to think that it’s not worth it unless you’re shooting wide open all the time, this will be helpful. Thank you for your be-all and end-all opinion, though.
Great article. You have your finger on the pulse of reality.
I would never buy anything faster than 1.4 and even then it would be a specialty lens. If I wanted a do it all type of thing a compact f2 or f2.8 would do fine. The only reason I would get a 1.4 would be like a 24f1.4 just for the look of wide FoV and shallow DoF.
“I still don’t recommend shooting portraits with such a narrow depth of field.”
Why?!
You just said “The end result is glorious”
You don’t recommend to take glorious portraits?
And that’s true, I still don’t recommend it for every single portrait that a photographer takes, though. There’s a time and a place.
I just buy the 28-200 tamron for traveling with my Sony a9. The results was highly suprise me when I take my first portraits with this lens around 70mm..even I. Low light situation
Hmmm interesting perspective. Your comment that “The problem now is that creative snobs and influencers will tell you that you’re not a professional unless you shoot with the latest f/0.95, f/1.0, f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses”. Can suggest that you hang as round with the wrong kind of people. Ha Ha…. I love to shoot hockey games. Unfortunately, most arenas have poor lighting. I need to have the capability to crop in close while at the same time have a wide enough FOV to capture the blue line shots. I also need a shutter speed of at least 1/600 sec to… Read more »
It is nice to have the option, but it’s not essential. I have one really fast lens, that didn’t cost the earth (7Artisans 50mm f/0.95) which I do really like for certain shots. It also does help me get good photos in low light as the sensor in my old Olympus E-M5ii isn’t great at ISO 3200 or higher. It was much cheaper than buying a new camera body. I have no particular desire to have a whole range of super fast lenses though. F/2.8-4, even on micro 4/3 is easily good enough for me 90% of the time.
My dad always said “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything”.
Yesss you are right with this modern cameras we don’t really need this unbeleaveble expensive lenses! Today you can screw up ISO to Incredible hights what was impossible with analog cameras and films in the 7thies when I start to capture photos. My favorite lens was a 135mm f/4.0 for Portraits and with that I was shooting some of my best pics ever. That time nobody was knowing or talking about BOKEH, haha. Thats what I say I agree with you, Yess you are 100% right?
Well, as usual, from the comments it would seem that I occupy a tiny niche among photographers, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see it is 1 in 1,000 or even several thousand. For me and for my kind of shooting, total nonsense. I shoot dance, as a dance photographer and dancer for decades now. Note, not a photog who shoots dancers, whole different bit. I shoot production and performance and rehearsals and and and. The things I need because I have little or no control over the lighting which is both way too low and way to… Read more »
For me, with sports (volleyball) indoors, with typically bad light, I need fast shutter to stop the ball. And since far away I won’t get any separation between subject and background, hardly even at f4. If love a decent zoom range at f1. 8, but can’t afford it. I stick with my 85mm f2, and 50mm f1.8, and just try to position myself for the shot I want. Someone’s I shoot with higher f-stop to help with the issue of focus, depending on what I’m trying to catch.
60 year oldPentacon 135 bokeh monster on sony a6500…old and new together,,,I love the mix..
I would say it is still needed for different purposes.
It is needed both by proffessionals who know what they are doing and by clueless amateurs who often don’t even know what caused razor sharp thin DOF they got. More could be said but people unfortunately need them for options and styles. In anycase I got your point.
Great article! My favorite lens is a 16-80 f/4. When I had my Canon 5Dmklll, it was a 24-105 f/4. I had faster glass when I photographed school sports, but I needed f/2.8 for that
Very few types of photography need anything below f/2.8
For those uses sure have a lens specifically for that. But I’m not lugging a heavy wide angle lens for landscapes when I stop down to f8-f11 amyway.
Interesting take. For me fast lenses are essential as a disabled photographer, with shaky hands shooting wide open allows me to use much faster shutter speeds than what I could get away with using a smaller aperture in low light. Your example of that low light shot at 12800 iso is clear, but I suspect if it were in colour the noise would be far more obvious. That said, I agree that l anything wider than 1.8 is overkill and kinda silly.
Very interesting article. Newbee to fast lenses and I wonder : Will same aperture on different lenses always create same debth of field (more or less I know minor differences due to the quality, glass etc etc) regardless of how fast they are? For example : will the 50 mm Sony G 1.2 stopped down to f4. 0 give the same debth of field as a F4 lense wide open? So say indoor photos in low light where you have to go F4 to the get what you want in the focus.. The faster lense will not give any low… Read more »
Great article Brett. I was reading an article recently where a couple sued their wedding photographer for incompetence because he got the background out of focus 😁