Do you need the "best" lens

RangerPhotog wrote:

Additionally..."sharpness" is way overblown these days when it comes to lens reviews, etc. I have the 2.0 primes and do love them primarily because of the size. I use them all the time for general shooting. That said, I do have the 18/1.4 and 33/1.4 because I do shoot in low light whether it is at night on the street or musicians in bars. If I was only shooting landscapes, I wouldn't feel the need for these lenses.

Sharpness is "such a bourgeois concept" at least to Henri Cartier-Bresson who was no slouch with a camera.  A lens only has to be as sharp as the camera's resolution.  Any more is wasted.  Lenses today are plenty sharp.  You would think this was 1948 by the way the Internet talking heads idiots drone on.  This is not 1948 it's 2022.

The bottom line there are a lot of idiots on the Internet that have no idea what they are talking about but get a nice income by generating clicks from those who are looking for information but have no idea that what they get is any good or not.

Given that lenses today are "sharp enough" given the optics CAD designs packages and the computers to run them - what is left.  Lens speed and lens size which are related.

Lens speed = min aperture.  The lower the number the faster the lens.  Faster lenses collect more light by a sqrt(2) factor.  A f1.4 lens collects twice the light as an f2 which collects twice the light as an f2.8, etc.  On the other hand the DOF increases with the f number.  The DOF of an f2 is greater than an f1.4, etc.

The f number is a ratio of the focal length to the aperture area.  The smaller the f number the bigger front lens area needs to be.  A area of the front lens of  a f1.4 lens is twice the area than an f2.8 lens because it has to be!

It all gets down to the requirements.  If you shoot landscape, you don't need a fast lens you need DOF.  You are probably shooting at f8 or above and probably with a Fuji using deconvolution sharping up front to address diffraction.  You don't need a 16 f1.4 (if you like wide angle for landscape) a 16 f2.8 will do just fine as it will be set at least at f8 or above anyway.  The 16 f2.8 will be a more compact and smaller lens and less expensive because of less glass and a less expensive design.

If you shoot low light or you value spacial separation - they you will need a fast lens.  It will be bigger and more expensive - bigger glass means more expensive.  I have the Fuji 50 f1 because at times I want the spatial separation and unique rendering that the f1 can provide.  If one does not care about that - then this is a very big and very expensive lens and it is not for you.

It gets down to one simple question when it comes to lenses.  What are your requirements?