p.1 #2 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
You can go get a great, slow lens in any mount at a decent price. There's no impetus for further development of such lenses, since lenses are how camera companies make their profits (bodies are loss leaders).
Canon got a bunch of backlash for going too far in that direction with some poorly conceived f8 and f11 teles, and it's hard to imagine many would want to approach that with their own lineup.
Voigtlander is also doing some interesting things in the slow lens space, you should take a look.
p.1 #4 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
I think that the historical struggle, even through the early days of digital, was having a wide aperture not just for pretty bokeh but also to allow lower light shooting.
Many old lenses that were native to~f/4 (or even cheap f/2.8 primes) were really good and had good sharpness across the frame. It seems like the 2000s spawned f/4 or slower lenses that were often lousy outside of center until f/8. I imagine that was to fill a price point.
I could totally get behind high quality and f/4 but would not want to pay $1k for it. The old Canon EF 17-40 f/4L (pre-IS) was a gem at $700 and outperformed the first two versions of the far more expensive 16-35/2.8L. More like that and less like the OK but not great Zony 16-35/4 OSS would be welcome in my bag.
p.1 #5 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
RoamingScott wrote:
You can go get a great, slow lens in any mount at a decent price. There's no impetus for further development of such lenses, since lenses are how camera companies make their profits (bodies are loss leaders).
Canon got a bunch of backlash for going too far in that direction with some poorly conceived f8 and f11 teles, and it's hard to imagine many would want to approach that with their own lineup.
Voigtlander is also doing some interesting things in the slow lens space, you should take a look.
I'm done with adapting, had Contax, Leica R and Oly lenses in my canon days and Pentax K, Canon EOS and Canon FD early in my Sony journey, can't be doing with the bother.
I get there will always be a demand for faster lenses and by some means having a faster lens can do it all. But seems Sony recently are chasing speed. I know they have released the small g series, but nothing like a 400/5.6, the 24-105 is long in the tooth.
I guess there is the f4 trilogy of 16-35PZ, 20-70 and 70-200, and I have the first and last of that trio, so I guess I have some of my needs met already and I'm just spitballing. Isn't that what forums are for
p.1 #6 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
I don't really consider putting a 90mm M on another mount "adapting", since you lose no corner performance, nor lose anything else regarding manual focus (not like Sony has any unique MF aids to speak of that a native Voigt would give you).
p.1 #7 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
Age has caught up with my eyesight somewhat, had Loxias and voigtlanders but now back on AF lenses except the loxia 21 which I just can't seem to let go of
p.1 #8 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
I love fast lenses for outdoor use but for my studio portrait work I'd love an optically near flawless upgrade to the 25-105mm G, I have the Sigma 28-105mm f2.8 which is very good but it doesn't match my GM primes for IQ.
p.1 #9 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
The Behemoths are optional. Buy if you want one.
For your 24-135 wish, move to Nikon for 24-120 f4.
135 3.5: How about Tamron 70-180 2.8? Very unlikely Sony will make one.
Batis 135 2.8 is closest. What's wrong with that?
It's not 'we' that are obsessed. Manufacturers make what they think will be profitable.
400 5.6 - again, move to Nikon for 400 4.5. Or just get GM 100-400.
You'd then have 135 3.5 (almost), 400 5.6 and a whole lot of other lengths.
When Canon introduced EF 100-400 II, the 400 5.6L 'cold dead hands' lens quickly became a 'sell' lens. Particularly for landscape use, the zoom was equally sharp in the centre but better away from centre. The 200 gram weight penalty was worth it for IS, Zoom, Smaller when stowed, superior optics.
Nikon 300 f4 PF with 1.4 TC would probably be the best modern alternative with low weight.
The lenses you want exist. It's just not realistic for one manufacturer to give you them all though.
Currently, Nikon offers the best option to get what you want lens wise with both their lenses and adapting others.
p.1 #10 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
Re: "Am I alone or is everyone in love with 50-150 f2 behemoths?"
No, you are not alone. I also think that lenses that aren't the long telephoto (400-600mm) shouldn't be white. Perhaps the prominent white lenses don't bother professional event photographers, but these lenses are a no-go for travel and street photography.
What is it that you mainly wish for when asking for good-quality F4 lenses for landscape and cityscapes? Is this about reducing the weight? If yes, what is the upper limit for a camera system (body+lens) that you can handle without much trouble?
p.1 #11 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
Of course this is the answer, I just didn’t want to be the one to say it this time
Choderboy wrote:
The lenses you want exist. It's just not realistic for one manufacturer to give you them all though.
Currently, Nikon offers the best option to get what you want lens wise with both their lenses and adapting others.
p.1 #12 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
I have never before had a lens as versatile and stunning as the 50-150 f2. It allows for incrediblephotos, whether I want a narrow depth of field over a large range or a plenty of depth. It canceled out my need for multiple other lenses, including the 135 GM.
Also, once the system has been populated with the more commonly used options, it makes sense to add more unique lenses rather than more of the same.
Also, from Sony's perspective, they could make a larger profit margin on such unique lenses. Whereas a cheaper, slower lens, will have much less profit margin and waaaaaay more competition. This is especially true of Sony, with its massive third party options.
p.1 #13 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
Video/hybrid is the primary driver behind most lens development currently because that market continues to grow (for however long it lasts). They're the ones making demands for faster, higher performing lenses, especially zooms. So, yes, as long as the money is there, that's where the big development dollars go. If you, as a stills shooter, love your 50-150GM, thank the videographers who whined for it.
p.1 #15 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
johnahill wrote:
So......reading various announcements and wishlists for lens releases
Have we become obsessed by faster and faster lenses?
I mean they have a place, great for portraitures, maybe journalism, events and such.
I shoot mainly at f4 and below for landscape and cityscapes, would love to see offerings other than the race for the fastest aperture.
24-135 f4, 135 3.5, 400 5.6 and so on
Am I alone or is everyone in love with 50-150 f2 behemoths?
You are just being sensible. :-)
There is a place for the super large aperture lenses, but most photography doesn't require them. Certainly they are not generally necessary for things like landscape photography, and for travel and street they can be more of a burden than they are worth. One secret is that you can actually get quite good pokey with lenses that have smaller apertures if you know what you are doing.
I chalk the popularity of such lines up to several things.
As mentioned, there are some use cases for which their capabilities are valuable.
There is also sometimes a sense among some photographers that they don't want to be left behind and that they must have the "best thing." And there's an assumption that the best thing is the costlier thing. And that if f/2 is good, then f/1.4 is better, f/1.2 is beyond that, and...
There's also the presumption that big camera gear "looks more pro" than workaday stuff that isn't so humongous.
p.1 #16 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
johnahill wrote:
So......reading various announcements and wishlists for lens releases
Have we become obsessed by faster and faster lenses?
I mean they have a place, great for portraitures, maybe journalism, events and such.
I shoot mainly at f4 and below for landscape and cityscapes, would love to see offerings other than the race for the fastest aperture.
24-135 f4, 135 3.5, 400 5.6 and so on
Am I alone or is everyone in love with 50-150 f2 behemoths?
Sometimes it seems to a person that every lens in the word is being developed other than what they want.
I think the main change is that the technology exists to make faster lenses with better image quality than ever and the video market is enough to justify them.
p.1 #17 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
johnahill wrote:
So......reading various announcements and wishlists for lens releases
Have we become obsessed by faster and faster lenses?
I mean they have a place, great for portraitures, maybe journalism, events and such.
I shoot mainly at f4 and below for landscape and cityscapes, would love to see offerings other than the race for the fastest aperture.
24-135 f4, 135 3.5, 400 5.6 and so on
Am I alone or is everyone in love with 50-150 f2 behemoths?
In the 1950s, a 135/3.5 would be considerably sharper than a zoom lens. However today the zoom lens is as sharp as the slow prime. For this reason other than niche use cases the slow primes have lost their reason to exist.
Regarding the 24-135 f4, Sigma's 20-200, Tamron's 25-200 fills this niche. Sony has a 24-240 but it does not perform as well as the third party options.
Feb 27, 2026 at 01:54 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
aCuria wrote:
In the 1950s, a 135/3.5 would be considerably sharper than a zoom lens. However today the zoom lens is as sharp as the slow prime. For this reason other than niche use cases the slow primes have lost their reason to exist.
Regarding the 24-135 f4, Sigma's 20-200, Tamron's 25-200 fills this niche. Sony has a 24-240 but it does not perform as well as the third party options.
If you are building a travel kit, however, there is a lot of capability in a slow longer prime at a big weight reduction to even an f/4 tele zoom. A 135 f/3.5 could be built and weigh less than 400g. In contrast, even f/4 700-200ish zoom weigh about 700g. In a travel kit a 700g lens is quite a bit of weight and for some, myself included, that difference in weight is a significant consideration for a travel kit. My own view is that this weight reduction is enough of a reason for such primes to exist, and that a 135 f/3.5 makes just as much sense as a 90 f/2.8 and those do exist.
p.1 #19 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
I love to use fast lenses as I’m an early adopter to the EF 50/1.2 L and 85/1.2 L II on my Canon DSLRs and now with the EMR6 MKII. With my Sony A6700 which is my travel mirrorless camera f/1.8 lenses will suffice.
p.1 #20 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses
aCuria wrote:
In the 1950s, a 135/3.5 would be considerably sharper than a zoom lens. However today the zoom lens is as sharp as the slow prime. For this reason other than niche use cases the slow primes have lost their reason to exist.
Not entirely. There’s a real interest in camera systems with smaller form factors these days, in part as a reaction against much larger cameras using (relatively) big zooms and big-aperture lenses. For travel/street and similar photography, the advantages of smaller size and lighter weight often outweigh any advantage from huge primes or zooms.
Your point about zoom quality is correct. Back in the day (a day I can remember) zoom lenses were not very good and typically had much smaller maximum apertures than the good primes available at the time. But in the past few decades the f/2.8 (and now occasionally larger) zooms, combined with the high-ISO capabilities of digital cameras, have made the large aperture primes less appealing in some cases where they were formerly necessary.
If we are honest about our photography, most of use would be fine with, for example, a f/4 70-200mm zoom. (There are exceptions.) I used to use such a lens (from a non-Sony manufacturer), but I eventually sold it and replaced it with a f/4 equivalent that is smaller and lighter and optically in the same league.
