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 a choice in service of it, you're left with something technically clean that could've been made anywhere by anyone. Thoughts?
Let's consider this case from a different angle.
Let's consider a randomly selected group of 100 photographers, all possessing high end Sony cameras with f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses.
How many of these can be reasonably expected to have (a) good hands-on experience and knowledge of their gear, (b) good experience and skills in photography in general, and (c) sufficient capacity (talent?) for producing visual art?
Realistically, I would say - few (and I cannot count myself as one of the few); thus, I expect that an average Joe photographer who invested into an (expensive!) f/1.2 - 1.4 prime should produce unremarkable and stereotypical work (like you said "...background obliterated. Context is getting lost to bokeh balls").
I also expect this average photographer to praise the quality of the out-of-camera jpegs (or jpegs from Lightroom with minimal post-processing), because they wouldn't like doing post-processing in general.
Finally, this average photographer might have the feeling that when a fair amount of money has been invested into a lens like the 50mm F1.2 GM, then the lens must be used wide-open and it would be silly to use such a lense closed to f/2.8 or more.
In the end, I agree with those who attribute uninteresting (boring?) photography to those behind their cameras, rather than to the gear in use. I also think that the reality is that statistically not many people do (and are capable of doing) art photography. Why do you think wildlife (and especially bird) photography is so popular? This is the subject that is well-defined; it is usually photographed wide-open, and the stereotypical subjects and/or compositions are highly appreciated among wildlife photographers.
Ouch, I didn't expect a jab at wildlife/bird photographers in this thread ;-) ...
Aug 30, 2026 at 11:02 AM
Previous versions of j4nu's message #17097955 « Are Fast Lenses becoming boring? »
