- Messages
- 915
- Name
- Adrian
- Edit My Images
- No
Something I've been pondering for a few weeks following Nikon's announcement of a new mount...
Are we, the consumer, being fooled into thinking that wider aperture lenses are essential?
In an age of ISO insensitive sensors, are they really required? Back in the dark ages when we used film they served a purpose. Images were captured. Some were iconic. Would they be any better today with a shortened DoF? Are portraits really better when only the foremost eye is in focus? Is a Nikon 85mm f/1.4 any better when it's been stopped down by a stop or two and compared against the Nikon 85mm f/1.8?
I'm guilty. I've justified the purchase of several, expensive, wide primes. How often have I used them wide open and had a 'keeper'? My LR catalogues are a testimony to my aperture selection.
The cynic wonders if this is hype generated through careful marketing. Sensor quality is peaking. Faster lenses use more glass which commands higher prices. Larger mounts enable even larger apertures. Bigger is better. Buy. Buy. Buy. When mirror-less cameras first began the gain market traction, they were marketed as being smaller and lighter. The latest range of large aperture lenses make a mockery of these claims (IMHO).
I'm not saying I'm right. I'm certainly not trolling. I would, however, be very interested in your views.
Are we, the consumer, being fooled into thinking that wider aperture lenses are essential?
In an age of ISO insensitive sensors, are they really required? Back in the dark ages when we used film they served a purpose. Images were captured. Some were iconic. Would they be any better today with a shortened DoF? Are portraits really better when only the foremost eye is in focus? Is a Nikon 85mm f/1.4 any better when it's been stopped down by a stop or two and compared against the Nikon 85mm f/1.8?
I'm guilty. I've justified the purchase of several, expensive, wide primes. How often have I used them wide open and had a 'keeper'? My LR catalogues are a testimony to my aperture selection.
The cynic wonders if this is hype generated through careful marketing. Sensor quality is peaking. Faster lenses use more glass which commands higher prices. Larger mounts enable even larger apertures. Bigger is better. Buy. Buy. Buy. When mirror-less cameras first began the gain market traction, they were marketed as being smaller and lighter. The latest range of large aperture lenses make a mockery of these claims (IMHO).
I'm not saying I'm right. I'm certainly not trolling. I would, however, be very interested in your views.