Are Fast Lenses becoming boring?
p.2 #1Are Fast Lenses becoming boring?
It's a bit like the argument about wide angle lenses. How wide
Well, you can always crop with a "too wide" lens but you can't always back up. I recall debating a 47mm vs 55mm for my 4x5 years ago. A more experienced friend said to go for the wider angle lens for the above reason.
Regarding aperture, with a slower lens, you can open the aperture only so wide. An f/4 lens won't go to f/2.8.
It's good to have choices.
Well, you can always crop with a "too wide" lens but you can't always back up. I recall debating a 47mm vs 55mm for my 4x5 years ago. A more experienced friend said to go for the wider angle lens for the above reason. Regarding aperture, with a slower lens, you can open the aperture only so wide. An f/4 lens won't go to f/2.8.
It's good to have choices.
Aug 29, 2026 at 04:49 PM
p.2 #2Are Fast Lenses becoming boring?
RustyRus wrote:
EBHOf course you can- My comment is around no one is choosing to stop them down. All of the photos are starting to look the same- In a basement or in France?
C'mon. How can you claim that "no one is choosing to stop down" their large aperture lenses? Are you checking EXIF on all of the photographs you see that use smaller apertures and verifying that they did not use a f/1.4 or f/1.2 lens?
I have a couple of f/1.4 lenses that I occasionally use for things like for night street photography. I only rarely shoot them at the maximum aperture. More typically — even at night in urban settings — I'd be at f/2.8 or f/4.
Your claim that "no one is choosing to stop [these lenses] down" reminds me of the old canard that all photographs that use HDR suck. The flaw in that notion was first pointed out to me by a photographer whose work is in the lineage of Ansel (he worked with him) who I know, who when I said something about HDR a few years ago said, "you only notice the bad stuff. There are lots of ways to use it well where you would not even realize that the technique was employed." (Paraphrasing him here.)
When you look at some photo shot at a big aperture, you have no idea how many times that photographer uses that lens at f/8 or f/11, do you? Essentially you made up the claim that "no one is choosing to stop them down," and then based this thread on that completely unsupported claim.
f/1.4 lens... shot at f/16...
Moonlit Stairway, Wall, and Window
EB-1 wrote
You can stop down a fast lens to a smaller aperture, but a slow lens will never open up to be fast.EBH
C'mon. How can you claim that "no one is choosing to stop down" their large aperture lenses? Are you checking EXIF on all of the photographs you see that use smaller apertures and verifying that they did not use a f/1.4 or f/1.2 lens?
I have a couple of f/1.4 lenses that I occasionally use for things like for night street photography. I only rarely shoot them at the maximum aperture. More typically — even at night in urban settings — I'd be at f/2.8 or f/4.
Your claim that "no one is choosing to stop [these lenses] down" reminds me of the old canard that all photographs that use HDR suck. The flaw in that notion was first pointed out to me by a photographer whose work is in the lineage of Ansel (he worked with him) who I know, who when I said something about HDR a few years ago said, "you only notice the bad stuff. There are lots of ways to use it well where you would not even realize that the technique was employed." (Paraphrasing him here.)
When you look at some photo shot at a big aperture, you have no idea how many times that photographer uses that lens at f/8 or f/11, do you? Essentially you made up the claim that "no one is choosing to stop them down," and then based this thread on that completely unsupported claim.
f/1.4 lens... shot at f/16...
Moonlit Stairway, Wall, and Window
Aug 29, 2026 at 05:22 PM
p.2 #3Are Fast Lenses becoming boring?
Looking at the first 3 pages of the Sigma 135 1.4 thread it appears the vast majority of the images were shot wide open to induce the background blur. That’s fine as the lens is made for portraits…but at least this small sample set does backup the OP’s statement.
Aug 29, 2026 at 05:40 PM
p.2 #4Are Fast Lenses becoming boring?
It's fine to express an opinion, eg. 'wide open images are boring', there are plenty of people who would agree.
But, fast lenses and shallow dof are nothing new, except that optical quality is much higher now (competed to decades ago) so high quality fast lenses are easier to achieve (eg F1.4 short tele's). I regularly enjoy my Canon FL 58/1.2, c. 1968, wide open for maximum aberrations for creative effect. Same with a Sony 50/1.2 GM, albeit with very few aberrations. I had Canon FD SSC Aspherical 85/1.2 and the FD 24/1.4 SSC Aspherical back in the '80s. Shot mostly wide open, of course. I wish I still had them, if only to sell to some cine guy for stupid money, but I digress. Point is, fast lenses, used wide open, is nothing new. And I'm not a fan of the 'f16' ethic or aesthetic either, but each to their own.
But, fast lenses and shallow dof are nothing new, except that optical quality is much higher now (competed to decades ago) so high quality fast lenses are easier to achieve (eg F1.4 short tele's). I regularly enjoy my Canon FL 58/1.2, c. 1968, wide open for maximum aberrations for creative effect. Same with a Sony 50/1.2 GM, albeit with very few aberrations. I had Canon FD SSC Aspherical 85/1.2 and the FD 24/1.4 SSC Aspherical back in the '80s. Shot mostly wide open, of course. I wish I still had them, if only to sell to some cine guy for stupid money, but I digress. Point is, fast lenses, used wide open, is nothing new. And I'm not a fan of the 'f16' ethic or aesthetic either, but each to their own.
Aug 29, 2026 at 06:08 PM
p.2 #5Are Fast Lenses becoming boring?
Repetition of anything is boring. So yeah, repeated shallow DoF viewpoints of stereotypical subjects is boring. How many ways can a cat’s eyeball be photographed uniquely?
Aug 29, 2026 at 07:31 PM
p.2 #6Are Fast Lenses becoming boring?
I'm not sure how to answer the question other than thinking about how I use my own lenses.
My 50 Summilux is probably the lens I’m shooting the most right now. I shoot it wide open a lot, but I enjoy it just as much stopped down to f/5.6, and sometimes even f/11. That’s probably part of what I like about it. It’s fun at pretty much any depth of field.
My 35 GM is also a 1.4 and I shoot that wide open quite a bit, but I don’t think it has quite the same ability to obliterate the background that the Summilux does.
Then there’s my 70-200 GM II 2.8. I almost always shoot it wide open. I rarely feel like I’m losing the sense of where the photo was taken with that lens. I just love what it does. It makes the subject pop, the background falls away enough, and the overall look requires little to nothing in post.
So I’m definitely not against shooting wide open. I just know that I personally haven't kept two really good and well regarded Fast f/1.2 lenses. Those being the Voight 40/1.2 and the GM 50/1.2. Both are great. Excellent. I get more satisfaction from the 3 lenses i have in my bag. Whatever any of that means, I don't know.
RustyRus wrote:
With the sheer amount of fast glass on the market today, has the wide-open look become the default?
It seems every new prime ships at f/1.2 or f/1.4, and half of them look the same: subject sharp, background obliterated. Context is getting lost to bokeh balls. If a portrait tells you where you are, is that becoming the outlier? You can't tell if the shot was made in Lisbon or a parking garage, and it doesn't seem to matter in most cases.
Shallow depth of field is a great tool. But when it becomes the reason for the picture instead of...Show more →
My 50 Summilux is probably the lens I’m shooting the most right now. I shoot it wide open a lot, but I enjoy it just as much stopped down to f/5.6, and sometimes even f/11. That’s probably part of what I like about it. It’s fun at pretty much any depth of field.
My 35 GM is also a 1.4 and I shoot that wide open quite a bit, but I don’t think it has quite the same ability to obliterate the background that the Summilux does.
Then there’s my 70-200 GM II 2.8. I almost always shoot it wide open. I rarely feel like I’m losing the sense of where the photo was taken with that lens. I just love what it does. It makes the subject pop, the background falls away enough, and the overall look requires little to nothing in post.
So I’m definitely not against shooting wide open. I just know that I personally haven't kept two really good and well regarded Fast f/1.2 lenses. Those being the Voight 40/1.2 and the GM 50/1.2. Both are great. Excellent. I get more satisfaction from the 3 lenses i have in my bag. Whatever any of that means, I don't know.
RustyRus wrote:
With the sheer amount of fast glass on the market today, has the wide-open look become the default?
It seems every new prime ships at f/1.2 or f/1.4, and half of them look the same: subject sharp, background obliterated. Context is getting lost to bokeh balls. If a portrait tells you where you are, is that becoming the outlier? You can't tell if the shot was made in Lisbon or a parking garage, and it doesn't seem to matter in most cases.
Shallow depth of field is a great tool. But when it becomes the reason for the picture instead of...Show more →
Aug 29, 2026 at 08:03 PM
p.2 #7Are Fast Lenses becoming boring?
We now have amazing IBIS, AI Bokeh, off the chart noise mitigation, so this must be a thread discussing film photography.
Aug 29, 2026 at 08:11 PM
p.2 #8Are Fast Lenses becoming boring?
AI bokeh? Ulgh. Please keep using your superfast lenes, bokeh-lovers.
Aug 29, 2026 at 09:42 PM
p.2 #9Are Fast Lenses becoming boring?
Jack Flesher wrote:
Repetition of anything is boring. So yeah, repeated shallow DoF viewpoints of stereotypical subjects is boring. How many ways can a cat’s eyeball be photographed uniquely?
HA!
I never even thought of a cats eye but this sums up what I am talking about- Not talkiing about a stopped down landscape shot- Or even a wide open one-
Repetition of anything is boring. So yeah, repeated shallow DoF viewpoints of stereotypical subjects is boring. How many ways can a cat’s eyeball be photographed uniquely?
HA!
I never even thought of a cats eye but this sums up what I am talking about- Not talkiing about a stopped down landscape shot- Or even a wide open one-
Aug 29, 2026 at 10:54 PM
|
p.2 #11Are Fast Lenses becoming boring?
Nifty Fifty wrote:
RustyRus wrote
Context is getting lost to bokeh balls.90%?? I guess you only shoot portraits or astrophotography. Shooting landscapes at wider apertures doesn't make much sense unless you want to obliterate the background and isolate the subject for some artistic reason.
Apertures are tools, and each one has its own uses. Obviously, a lens that starts at a wider aperture is more versatile because you have more options. You can always stop down to increase the DOF.
But I can assure you that most people want to see a lot of DOF in landscape photography.
Aug 30, 2026 at 02:29 AM
p.2 #12Are Fast Lenses becoming boring?
RustyRus wrote:
Nifty Fifty wrote
RustyRus wrote
Context is getting lost to bokeh balls.Here are just three examples.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55495058257_ae23dcd490_b.jpgDSC05834 by Werner Wurst, on Flickr
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55496428575_f9ed97edcd_b.jpgDSC04180 by Werner Wurst, on Flickr
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55496199234_2b0e0d37e6_b.jpgDSC09202 by Werner Wurst, on Flickr
Obviously you can shoot wide open and not blow out the background. I actually love this form of photography with fast lenses when you're focused closer to infinity, and I like using it to show off a lens's character within a scene.
It's all art, so however people want to shoot is fine by me. For me, the look is just starting to feel overused, everywhere, like it's become the default.
Well, the reason such pointless threads annoy me is that they use a purely rhetorical question solely to relieve the asker's boredom while fostering or reinforcing misconceptions. Why would a fast prime lens, which quite clearly offers a wider range of imaging possibilities than a slower version, be a source of boredom? That premise makes absolutely no sense. If you find those repetitive wide-open shots, featuring a prominent close-up subject against a background blurred into total unrecognizability, boring, then I find that completely understandable. However, the question that should follow isn't whether fast prime lenses have become boring, but rather whether you might be making a fundamental mistake in your search for interesting images. Perhaps you shouldn't be looking for inspiration in a tech forum, where everyone primarily wants to show off their gear's capabilities and replicate the kind of shots that have previously garnered likes from other forum members. Instead, you might want to search online for photographers whose work resonates with you, or, better yet, visit a well-stocked art bookstore to study photography monographs, or, best of all, visit galleries and museums known for their high-quality photography exhibitions. That would be far more rewarding, and it would also leave you with less time for threads that, in my view, are utterly pointless.
Aug 30, 2026 at 03:02 AM
p.2 #13Are Fast Lenses becoming boring?
maybe this thread will come to equal the one about 3D pop in length
Aug 30, 2026 at 03:05 AM
p.2 #14Are Fast Lenses becoming boring?
Alpunto wrote:
90%?? I guess you only shoot portraits or astrophotography.
A remarkable conclusion, given the example images in the post you are referring to.
Alpunto wrote:
But I can assure you that most people want to see a lot of DOF in landscape photography.
And I can assure you that nothing matters less to me than the fact that most people prefer great depth of field in landscape photography(*), because I, for one, do NOT prefer it. Besides, landscape photography is such a wide field that it is impossible to make a blanket statement claiming one approach is preferable to another. That same mistake is constantly made regarding focal length, too. Practically every newcomer on photography forums is taught that "landscape" equals "wide-angle", ideally ultra-wide-angle, and is led to believe it’s a catastrophe if a single corner of the image isn't razorsharp. People are welcome to handle things that way for themselves, but they shouldn't try to tell me what I have to do or avoid doing. And with that, I have exhausted this topic.
*Why doesn't anyone actually start a thread based on this fact asking, "Have landscape photos become boring?"
Aug 30, 2026 at 03:27 AM
p.2 #15Are Fast Lenses becoming boring?
I feel this this thread has helped me becoming a better photographer.
Lucky me, I found one boring lens only in my drawer and I'll immediately sell it to somebody not following this forum. Thank you.
Lucky me, I found one boring lens only in my drawer and I'll immediately sell it to somebody not following this forum. Thank you.
Aug 30, 2026 at 03:38 AM
p.2 #16Are Fast Lenses becoming boring?
chez wrote:
Looking at the first 3 pages of the Sigma 135 1.4 thread it appears the vast majority of the images were shot wide open to induce the background blur. That’s fine as the lens is made for portraits…but at least this small sample set does backup the OP’s statement.
Well, if early adopters of the 135/1.4 had posted a lot of images taken at f/8... wouldn't that be a bit strange?
Looking at the first 3 pages of the Sigma 135 1.4 thread it appears the vast majority of the images were shot wide open to induce the background blur. That’s fine as the lens is made for portraits…but at least this small sample set does backup the OP’s statement.
Well, if early adopters of the 135/1.4 had posted a lot of images taken at f/8... wouldn't that be a bit strange?
Aug 30, 2026 at 03:43 AM
p.2 #17Are Fast Lenses becoming boring?
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Alpunto wrote
90%?? I guess you only shoot portraits or astrophotography.First off, there's no need to be rude. You're not the only photographer on this forum.
A good example of a photo that needs a lot of DOF might be this one:
This picture wouldn't be the same shot with a wide aperture. You'd lose either the framing or the background.
Aug 30, 2026 at 03:45 AM
p.2 #18Are Fast Lenses becoming boring?
Alpunto wrote:
First off, there's no need to be rude. You're not the only photographer on this forum.
I show three sample photos that have absolutely nothing to do with portrait or astrophotography, and you conclude from that that I only shoot portrait and astro. How is one supposed to respond to that, and what does it have to do with the fact that I’m not the only participant in this thread?
Alpunto wrote:
A good example of a photo that needs a lot of DOF might be this one.
This picture wouldn't be the same shot with a wide aperture. You'd lose either the framing or the background.
It might sound arrogant, but if I liked that kind of visual style, I’d just snap photos with my smartphone. Unfortunately, I don’t, so I’m forced to lug around my heavy, boring lens. BTW, this has nothing to do with depth of field, but the image is tilting sharply to the right.
First off, there's no need to be rude. You're not the only photographer on this forum.
I show three sample photos that have absolutely nothing to do with portrait or astrophotography, and you conclude from that that I only shoot portrait and astro. How is one supposed to respond to that, and what does it have to do with the fact that I’m not the only participant in this thread?
Alpunto wrote:
A good example of a photo that needs a lot of DOF might be this one.
This picture wouldn't be the same shot with a wide aperture. You'd lose either the framing or the background.
It might sound arrogant, but if I liked that kind of visual style, I’d just snap photos with my smartphone. Unfortunately, I don’t, so I’m forced to lug around my heavy, boring lens. BTW, this has nothing to do with depth of field, but the image is tilting sharply to the right.
Aug 30, 2026 at 04:09 AM
p.2 #19Are Fast Lenses becoming boring?
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Why would a fast prime lens, which quite clearly offers a wider range of imaging possibilities than a slower version, be a source of boredom? That premise makes absolutely no sense.
It actually makes perfect sense, you just fail to see it.
A fast lens offers you the option to produce a "boring, indistinguishable from one another" shot in situations where a slow lens doesn't.
Of course, ultimately you make the choice as the photographer, but it's the lens that offers it to you .
Why would a fast prime lens, which quite clearly offers a wider range of imaging possibilities than a slower version, be a source of boredom? That premise makes absolutely no sense.
It actually makes perfect sense, you just fail to see it.
A fast lens offers you the option to produce a "boring, indistinguishable from one another" shot in situations where a slow lens doesn't.
Of course, ultimately you make the choice as the photographer, but it's the lens that offers it to you
.Aug 30, 2026 at 05:09 AM
p.2 #20Are Fast Lenses becoming boring?
j4nu wrote:
It actually makes perfect sense, you just fail to see it.
A fast lens offers you the option to produce a "boring, indistinguishable from one another" shot in situations where a slow lens doesn't.
Of course, ultimately you make the choice as the photographer, but it's the lens that offers it to you .
Boredom is generally related to a lack of choices (or imagination/creativity). A faster lens offers more choices than a slower lens.
Nifty Fifty wrote
Why would a fast prime lens, which quite clearly offers a wider range of imaging possibilities than a slower version, be a source of boredom? That premise makes absolutely no sense.A fast lens offers you the option to produce a "boring, indistinguishable from one another" shot in situations where a slow lens doesn't.
Of course, ultimately you make the choice as the photographer, but it's the lens that offers it to you
.Boredom is generally related to a lack of choices (or imagination/creativity). A faster lens offers more choices than a slower lens.
Aug 30, 2026 at 07:00 AM