Do you need the "best" lens

Truman Prevatt wrote:

dccberry wrote:

Blood N Guts Murphy wrote:

Many, if not most of my Fujifilm photos don't nail focus or have motion blur, or I just haven't sharpened them well in Lightroom. One was picked up by Flickr's explore today. But since switching to sharper lenses on a faster focusing camera I am much happier with my photos.

Which is more important than whether Flickr likes it imho. It feels great to have a higher keeper rate due to the AF, extra sharpness and shallower DOF, from better f1.4 lenses (better usually includes f1.4). The f1.4 helps reduce the motion blur from my hands.

A lens does not have "motion blur". That comes from you, the photographer.

Neither. Motion blur comes form the subject moving. If the shutter speed is too low - the motion will show up as a blurred image. Better camera technique won't solve it although better technique aways helps everything. IBIS, OIS, a combination of the two won't solve it because it comes from the subject. The only thing that will mitigate motion blur is a faster shutter speed.

That's incorrect. If I stopped moving the camera would be still and create less blur caused by my motion. This is why people use a tripod and timer for astro shots and landscapes.

Motion blur comes from me not holding the camera still and/or the subject moving.

If it is camera shake that is being referred to which I think it is then image stabilization would help to a point, the f stop has nothing to do with it. In fact f1.4 would let in more light which would result in a faster shutter speed which would help mitigate camera shake.

Yep. But you seem to be saying camera shake doesn't cause motion blur. It is blur and it happens as the camera is in motion.