Is there a need for F1.4 lenses....

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
SilvanBromide Senior Member • Posts: 4,137
Re: Is there a need for F1.4 lenses....
2

DenImage wrote:

"Was there ever really a need for this stupid article?"

:

Was there ever really a need for this type of response?

Apparently, yes.

For the poster, at least.  ; )

-- hide signature --

Former Canon, Nikon and Pentax user.
Online Gallery: https://500px.com/raycologon

 SilvanBromide's gear list:SilvanBromide's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony FE 35mm F1.4 Sony FE 85mm F1.4 GM Sony FE 12-24mm F4 Sony a7 III +25 more
XeroJay
XeroJay Senior Member • Posts: 2,309
Re: Is there a need for F1.4 lenses....
2

DenImage wrote:

"Was there ever really a need for this stupid article?"

:

Was there ever really a need for this type of response?

Den

Yes, I felt the need. Since we're now all here taking the bait, and discussing a moot point, yes there was a need to point out the the entire premise of the article was indeed, stupid. Yet here we are, putting forth our arguments as if there's actually anything to debate.

By asking if there's really a need for a premium option, the article set the state up for stupid-talk.

 XeroJay's gear list:XeroJay's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Sony a9 Sony a7 III Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM +7 more
lawny13 Senior Member • Posts: 2,031
Clear Need...
3

Though the article talked a lot about IQ, bokeh and such it didn't touch on AF performance at all.

A f1.2 lens will simply focus better than a f2.8 lens in dim lighting. If you find yourself in low light situations that your system struggles in terms of AF, then a faster lens will really make that difference.

Additionally he said it himself. More light in dim lighting is where the need arises. I find myself shooting at ISO 12800 way more than i would like to even with a f1.8 lens mounted. And that is because I shoot people a lot. So stabilization is not the solution. 
An f1.2 lens will give you one stop gain on ISO, and that definitely makes a difference in the higher ISO reason. 
So IMHO... the same practical advice should be given to all. What are you shooting, what is your lighting situation like, do you make money with your photography, or does your photography and IQ have certain value to you? Evaluate those and then make a decision. 
For example, and event shooter, shooting a lot at night, dim lighting etc, can most definitely justify and benefit from having a f1.2 prime in his kit if it means shooting at 3200 instead of 6400 while maintaining an acceptable shutter speed, even if he had stabilization and could shoot at lower shutter speeds, it still helps a lot in the AF department . A hobbiest shooting mostly in good light or not shooting often in dim lighting obviously has way less justification for such an option. 
So YES... we need fast glass. But its need is not as big as it used to be. Additionally, the difference between f1.4 and f1.8 might not be that big in terms of bokeh, but it is for f1.2 vs f1.8. Shoot a subject against a busy background with a f1.8 and f1.2 lens and tell me which you prefer, cause I am sure it will be the latter. Whether that justified $2k+ is the major question, but if you make money from your photography it may very well be completely justified.

XeroJay
XeroJay Senior Member • Posts: 2,309
Re: Clear Need...
1

lawny13 wrote:

Though the article talked a lot about IQ, bokeh and such it didn't touch on AF performance at all.

A f1.2 lens will simply focus better than a f2.8 lens in dim lighting. If you find yourself in low light situations that your system struggles in terms of AF, then a faster lens will really make that difference.

That's actually not true for DSLRs, which have AF systems that are usually limited to 2.8.

Additionally he said it himself. More light in dim lighting is where the need arises. I find myself shooting at ISO 12800 way more than i would like to even with a f1.8 lens mounted. And that is because I shoot people a lot. So stabilization is not the solution.
An f1.2 lens will give you one stop gain on ISO, and that definitely makes a difference in the higher ISO reason.
So IMHO... the same practical advice should be given to all. What are you shooting, what is your lighting situation like, do you make money with your photography, or does your photography and IQ have certain value to you? Evaluate those and then make a decision.
For example, and event shooter, shooting a lot at night, dim lighting etc, can most definitely justify and benefit from having a f1.2 prime in his kit if it means shooting at 3200 instead of 6400 while maintaining an acceptable shutter speed, even if he had stabilization and could shoot at lower shutter speeds, it still helps a lot in the AF department . A hobbiest shooting mostly in good light or not shooting often in dim lighting obviously has way less justification for such an option.
So YES... we need fast glass. But its need is not as big as it used to be. Additionally, the difference between f1.4 and f1.8 might not be that big in terms of bokeh, but it is for f1.2 vs f1.8. Shoot a subject against a busy background with a f1.8 and f1.2 lens and tell me which you prefer, cause I am sure it will be the latter. Whether that justified $2k+ is the major question, but if you make money from your photography it may very well be completely justified.

 XeroJay's gear list:XeroJay's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Sony a9 Sony a7 III Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM +7 more
lawny13 Senior Member • Posts: 2,031
Re: Clear Need...

XeroJay wrote:

lawny13 wrote:

Though the article talked a lot about IQ, bokeh and such it didn't touch on AF performance at all.

A f1.2 lens will simply focus better than a f2.8 lens in dim lighting. If you find yourself in low light situations that your system struggles in terms of AF, then a faster lens will really make that difference.

That's actually not true for DSLRs, which have AF systems that are usually limited to 2.8.

Really? You telling me that the 5DIV for example will focus at f2.8 instead of f1.8 with a f1.8 prime?

Additionally he said it himself. More light in dim lighting is where the need arises. I find myself shooting at ISO 12800 way more than i would like to even with a f1.8 lens mounted. And that is because I shoot people a lot. So stabilization is not the solution.
An f1.2 lens will give you one stop gain on ISO, and that definitely makes a difference in the higher ISO reason.
So IMHO... the same practical advice should be given to all. What are you shooting, what is your lighting situation like, do you make money with your photography, or does your photography and IQ have certain value to you? Evaluate those and then make a decision.
For example, and event shooter, shooting a lot at night, dim lighting etc, can most definitely justify and benefit from having a f1.2 prime in his kit if it means shooting at 3200 instead of 6400 while maintaining an acceptable shutter speed, even if he had stabilization and could shoot at lower shutter speeds, it still helps a lot in the AF department . A hobbiest shooting mostly in good light or not shooting often in dim lighting obviously has way less justification for such an option.
So YES... we need fast glass. But its need is not as big as it used to be. Additionally, the difference between f1.4 and f1.8 might not be that big in terms of bokeh, but it is for f1.2 vs f1.8. Shoot a subject against a busy background with a f1.8 and f1.2 lens and tell me which you prefer, cause I am sure it will be the latter. Whether that justified $2k+ is the major question, but if you make money from your photography it may very well be completely justified.

Pure Photo NI
Pure Photo NI Forum Member • Posts: 71
Re: Clear Need...
2

Thi is so silly, of course there is a need for f/1.4 lenses.

I think it's fair to say though that a lot of photographers use them even though they don't need them.

-- hide signature --

Wedding Photographer Belfast
https://www.purephotoni.com

 Pure Photo NI's gear list:Pure Photo NI's gear list
Sony a9 Sony a7 III Sony a7R IV Sony a9 II Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art +10 more
XeroJay
XeroJay Senior Member • Posts: 2,309
Re: Clear Need...
2

lawny13 wrote:

XeroJay wrote:

lawny13 wrote:

Though the article talked a lot about IQ, bokeh and such it didn't touch on AF performance at all.

A f1.2 lens will simply focus better than a f2.8 lens in dim lighting. If you find yourself in low light situations that your system struggles in terms of AF, then a faster lens will really make that difference.

That's actually not true for DSLRs, which have AF systems that are usually limited to 2.8.

Really? You telling me that the 5DIV for example will focus at f2.8 instead of f1.8 with a f1.8 prime?

In PDAF, yes. That's correct. With dual pixel live view though, it will use The 1.8.

Additionally he said it himself. More light in dim lighting is where the need arises. I find myself shooting at ISO 12800 way more than i would like to even with a f1.8 lens mounted. And that is because I shoot people a lot. So stabilization is not the solution.
An f1.2 lens will give you one stop gain on ISO, and that definitely makes a difference in the higher ISO reason.
So IMHO... the same practical advice should be given to all. What are you shooting, what is your lighting situation like, do you make money with your photography, or does your photography and IQ have certain value to you? Evaluate those and then make a decision.
For example, and event shooter, shooting a lot at night, dim lighting etc, can most definitely justify and benefit from having a f1.2 prime in his kit if it means shooting at 3200 instead of 6400 while maintaining an acceptable shutter speed, even if he had stabilization and could shoot at lower shutter speeds, it still helps a lot in the AF department . A hobbiest shooting mostly in good light or not shooting often in dim lighting obviously has way less justification for such an option.
So YES... we need fast glass. But its need is not as big as it used to be. Additionally, the difference between f1.4 and f1.8 might not be that big in terms of bokeh, but it is for f1.2 vs f1.8. Shoot a subject against a busy background with a f1.8 and f1.2 lens and tell me which you prefer, cause I am sure it will be the latter. Whether that justified $2k+ is the major question, but if you make money from your photography it may very well be completely justified.

 XeroJay's gear list:XeroJay's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Sony a9 Sony a7 III Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM +7 more
lawny13 Senior Member • Posts: 2,031
Re: Clear Need...

XeroJay wrote:

lawny13 wrote:

XeroJay wrote:

lawny13 wrote:

Though the article talked a lot about IQ, bokeh and such it didn't touch on AF performance at all.

A f1.2 lens will simply focus better than a f2.8 lens in dim lighting. If you find yourself in low light situations that your system struggles in terms of AF, then a faster lens will really make that difference.

That's actually not true for DSLRs, which have AF systems that are usually limited to 2.8.

Really? You telling me that the 5DIV for example will focus at f2.8 instead of f1.8 with a f1.8 prime?

In PDAF, yes. That's correct. With dual pixel live view though, it will use The 1.8.

Generally my comment on more light better AF stems from my experience with sony cameras. The difference between shooting focusing at f4 vs f2.8 is noticable. Same from f2.8 to f1.8. So I am sure it is also noticeable between f1.8 and f1.2. It can mean the difference between not bothering to take out the camera since you know it will be a battle, or taking it out for the shot.

Additionally he said it himself. More light in dim lighting is where the need arises. I find myself shooting at ISO 12800 way more than i would like to even with a f1.8 lens mounted. And that is because I shoot people a lot. So stabilization is not the solution.
An f1.2 lens will give you one stop gain on ISO, and that definitely makes a difference in the higher ISO reason.
So IMHO... the same practical advice should be given to all. What are you shooting, what is your lighting situation like, do you make money with your photography, or does your photography and IQ have certain value to you? Evaluate those and then make a decision.
For example, and event shooter, shooting a lot at night, dim lighting etc, can most definitely justify and benefit from having a f1.2 prime in his kit if it means shooting at 3200 instead of 6400 while maintaining an acceptable shutter speed, even if he had stabilization and could shoot at lower shutter speeds, it still helps a lot in the AF department . A hobbiest shooting mostly in good light or not shooting often in dim lighting obviously has way less justification for such an option.
So YES... we need fast glass. But its need is not as big as it used to be. Additionally, the difference between f1.4 and f1.8 might not be that big in terms of bokeh, but it is for f1.2 vs f1.8. Shoot a subject against a busy background with a f1.8 and f1.2 lens and tell me which you prefer, cause I am sure it will be the latter. Whether that justified $2k+ is the major question, but if you make money from your photography it may very well be completely justified.

lawny13 Senior Member • Posts: 2,031
Re: Clear Need...

Pure Photo NI wrote:

Thi is so silly, of course there is a need for f/1.4 lenses.

I think it's fair to say though that a lot of photographers use them even though they don't need them.

Yep... 80% of the time I definitely don't need it. f2.8 would be sufficient for blur. But 20% of the time I find myself shooting in dim lighting and there more light is better, for IQ, and AF.

XeroJay
XeroJay Senior Member • Posts: 2,309
Re: Clear Need...
2

lawny13 wrote:

XeroJay wrote:

lawny13 wrote:

XeroJay wrote:

lawny13 wrote:

Though the article talked a lot about IQ, bokeh and such it didn't touch on AF performance at all.

A f1.2 lens will simply focus better than a f2.8 lens in dim lighting. If you find yourself in low light situations that your system struggles in terms of AF, then a faster lens will really make that difference.

That's actually not true for DSLRs, which have AF systems that are usually limited to 2.8.

Really? You telling me that the 5DIV for example will focus at f2.8 instead of f1.8 with a f1.8 prime?

In PDAF, yes. That's correct. With dual pixel live view though, it will use The 1.8.

Generally my comment on more light better AF stems from my experience with sony cameras. The difference between shooting focusing at f4 vs f2.8 is noticable. Same from f2.8 to f1.8. So I am sure it is also noticeable between f1.8 and f1.2. It can mean the difference between not bothering to take out the camera since you know it will be a battle, or taking it out for the shot.

I guess that's one more argument for the relevance of faster primes; new mirrorless systems can now take advantage of that extra light for AF in dim situations.

Additionally he said it himself. More light in dim lighting is where the need arises. I find myself shooting at ISO 12800 way more than i would like to even with a f1.8 lens mounted. And that is because I shoot people a lot. So stabilization is not the solution.
An f1.2 lens will give you one stop gain on ISO, and that definitely makes a difference in the higher ISO reason.
So IMHO... the same practical advice should be given to all. What are you shooting, what is your lighting situation like, do you make money with your photography, or does your photography and IQ have certain value to you? Evaluate those and then make a decision.
For example, and event shooter, shooting a lot at night, dim lighting etc, can most definitely justify and benefit from having a f1.2 prime in his kit if it means shooting at 3200 instead of 6400 while maintaining an acceptable shutter speed, even if he had stabilization and could shoot at lower shutter speeds, it still helps a lot in the AF department . A hobbiest shooting mostly in good light or not shooting often in dim lighting obviously has way less justification for such an option.
So YES... we need fast glass. But its need is not as big as it used to be. Additionally, the difference between f1.4 and f1.8 might not be that big in terms of bokeh, but it is for f1.2 vs f1.8. Shoot a subject against a busy background with a f1.8 and f1.2 lens and tell me which you prefer, cause I am sure it will be the latter. Whether that justified $2k+ is the major question, but if you make money from your photography it may very well be completely justified.

 XeroJay's gear list:XeroJay's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Sony a9 Sony a7 III Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM +7 more
sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 16,013
Re: Is there a need for F1.4 lenses....
1

"Need" in the context of four to five figure camera kits for hobbyists is a very dubious concept.

That said, for me it's very focal length dependent. Right now, the only FLs I'm interested in for primes are 14mm (or wider, but rectilinear), 35-40mm, and 135mm. For 35-40mm, I want the lens as fast as possible as that's my low light/indoor lens. Sure, "modern sensors let you push ISOs higher"... which only expands my operating envelope more. For the rest, F/2.8 is fine. UWA subjects don't move and shutter speeds are forgiving. And I don't shoot action, and am fine with F/2.8 level of separation with tele lenses. A light, sharp, cheap 135/2.8 would be great.

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS II USM Canon 70-200 F2.8L III Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro +1 more
DenImage Senior Member • Posts: 3,173
Re: Is there a need for F1.4 lenses....
1

XeroJay wrote:

DenImage wrote:

"Was there ever really a need for this stupid article?"

:

Was there ever really a need for this type of response?

Den

Yes, I felt the need. Since we're now all here taking the bait, and discussing a moot point, yes there was a need to point out the the entire premise of the article was indeed, stupid. Yet here we are, putting forth our arguments as if there's actually anything to debate.

By asking if there's really a need for a premium option, the article set the state up for stupid-talk.

If what you've written above is true, why bother posting a response in this thread?

Why didn't you just ignore the thread and move on?

Den

 DenImage's gear list:DenImage's gear list
Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Sigma 8mm F3.5 EX DG Circular Fisheye Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 100mm F2.8 GM +3 more
XeroJay
XeroJay Senior Member • Posts: 2,309
Re: Is there a need for F1.4 lenses....
3

DenImage wrote:

XeroJay wrote:

DenImage wrote:

"Was there ever really a need for this stupid article?"

:

Was there ever really a need for this type of response?

Den

Yes, I felt the need. Since we're now all here taking the bait, and discussing a moot point, yes there was a need to point out the the entire premise of the article was indeed, stupid. Yet here we are, putting forth our arguments as if there's actually anything to debate.

By asking if there's really a need for a premium option, the article set the state up for stupid-talk.

If what you've written above is true, why bother posting a response in this thread?

Why didn't you just ignore the thread and move on?

Den

Because just like the want vs need issue of fast primes; I may not need to engage in a stupid discussion, but maybe it's something that I wanted to do

 XeroJay's gear list:XeroJay's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Sony a9 Sony a7 III Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM +7 more
sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 16,013
Re: Clear Need...

Pure Photo NI wrote:

Thi is so silly, of course there is a need for f/1.4 lenses.

So what is the need? Do you have any examples where the 2/3 of a stop from F/1.8 made a tangible difference?

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS II USM Canon 70-200 F2.8L III Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro +1 more
SilvanBromide Senior Member • Posts: 4,137
Re: Is there a need for F1.4 lenses....
2

sportyaccordy wrote:

"Need" in the context of four to five figure camera kits for hobbyists is a very dubious concept.

First, there's no basis to assume that this discussion applies only (or even primarily) to hobbyists. This is an open forum.

Second, there is a fallacy in talking about need as an absolute - and this is a prime example of it. It is actually a pretty standard (but weak) rhetorical maneuver.

Clearly, one doesn't "need" most things in any absolute sense, so your proposition *sounds* like a truism - except that nobody was arguing that in the first place, so you've knocked down a straw man.

It's pretty obvious that "need" in a discussion of this sort is relative-to-object. Fine, you don't need an ƒ1.4 lens (or any lens) in an absolute sense. But you might need it in order to take certain photos in certain conditions, or to achieve focus in low light or to get the bokeh look you prefer, etc.

That said, for me it's very focal length dependent. Right now, the only FLs I'm interested in for primes are 14mm (or wider, but rectilinear), 35-40mm, and 135mm. For 35-40mm, I want the lens as fast as possible as that's my low light/indoor lens. Sure, "modern sensors let you push ISOs higher"... which only expands my operating envelope more. For the rest, F/2.8 is fine. UWA subjects don't move and shutter speeds are forgiving. And I don't shoot action, and am fine with F/2.8 level of separation with tele lenses. A light, sharp, cheap 135/2.8 would be great.

Yes - I think we all accept different trade-offs for different shots and purposes. Goes with the territory.

It's good to have options and choose accordingly. Including (sometimes) fast glass! : )

-- hide signature --

Former Canon, Nikon and Pentax user.
Online Gallery: https://500px.com/raycologon

 SilvanBromide's gear list:SilvanBromide's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony FE 35mm F1.4 Sony FE 85mm F1.4 GM Sony FE 12-24mm F4 Sony a7 III +25 more
lattesweden
lattesweden Veteran Member • Posts: 3,179
Re: Is there a need for F1.4 lenses....
1

Philnw2 wrote:

I thought it would be interesting to get a "Sony" perspective on f1.4 or faster lenses.

For wideangles I find that it gets more "needy" to have bright apertures for blurry background portraits than with normal and tele lenses since the compression effect helps on the latter ones.

I therefor have 35/1.4, 55/1.8, 85/1.8 as my main portrait trio.

-- hide signature --

Best regards
/Anders
----------------------------------------------------
42 Megapixels is the answer to life, the universe and everything.
Gone in 20 fps.
You don't have to like my pictures, but it would help: http://www.lattermann.com/gallery

sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 16,013
Re: Is there a need for F1.4 lenses....
1

SilvanBromide wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

"Need" in the context of four to five figure camera kits for hobbyists is a very dubious concept.

First, there's no basis to assume that this discussion applies only (or even primarily) to hobbyists. This is an open forum.

You would have a point here if I said that. I qualified my statement in the context of what I view to be the typical DPR poster. But there's no basis to assume anything about the OP's intended audience or context.

Second, there is a fallacy in talking about need as an absolute - and this is a prime example of it. It is actually a pretty standard (but weak) rhetorical maneuver.

Clearly, one doesn't "need" most things in any absolute sense, so your proposition *sounds* like a truism - except that nobody was arguing that in the first place, so you've knocked down a straw man.

There are no fallacies or strawmen here. Words have meaning and the meaning of need is pretty clear. In a broad "Maslov's Hierarchy Of Needs" or in a strictly photographic context I haven't heard or seen any legitimate needs for an F/1.4 lens. There are photographic needs but I don't think super fast glass is one of them.

It's pretty obvious that "need" in a discussion of this sort is relative-to-object. Fine, you don't need an ƒ1.4 lens (or any lens) in an absolute sense.

Then what exactly are we talking about? Seems like you want to agree with me but won't allow yourself to admit it.

But you might need it in order to take certain photos in certain conditions, or to achieve focus in low light or to get the bokeh look you prefer, etc.

So in other words, you want it. Which is fine, but shouldn't be confused with needing it. I sincerely doubt the difference between F/1.4 and F/1.8 will make a tangible difference in AF, subject isolation or any other photographic parameter. I'd wager most folks would be hard pressed to tell the difference between that 2/3 stop.

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS II USM Canon 70-200 F2.8L III Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro +1 more
PWPhotography Veteran Member • Posts: 9,311
Re: Is there a need for F1.4 lenses....
1

To some is necessary and even f1.2 for extreme shallow DOF, bokeh and background rendering that is more attractive many times than those f1.8 or slower-aperture lenses.

Therefore I either sold or no longer interested in all those f1.8 portrait AF lenses below 100mm.  Have Sigma 35/1.4 Art at this moment (but interest in the new Sigma 35/1.2 Art), and interest in the CV FE 50/1.2 for street photos.  For 85mm portrait I'd get Samyang FE 85/1.4 or Sony GM, not in my high priority at this moment.

 PWPhotography's gear list:PWPhotography's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony a9 Sony a7R III Sony a7R IV Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye +17 more
XeroJay
XeroJay Senior Member • Posts: 2,309
Re: Is there a need for F1.4 lenses....
2

There's is a need for choice. That's it.

 XeroJay's gear list:XeroJay's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Sony a9 Sony a7 III Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM +7 more
lawny13 Senior Member • Posts: 2,031
Re: Is there a need for F1.4 lenses....

sportyaccordy wrote:

SilvanBromide wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

"Need" in the context of four to five figure camera kits for hobbyists is a very dubious concept.

First, there's no basis to assume that this discussion applies only (or even primarily) to hobbyists. This is an open forum.

You would have a point here if I said that. I qualified my statement in the context of what I view to be the typical DPR poster. But there's no basis to assume anything about the OP's intended audience or context.

Second, there is a fallacy in talking about need as an absolute - and this is a prime example of it. It is actually a pretty standard (but weak) rhetorical maneuver.

Clearly, one doesn't "need" most things in any absolute sense, so your proposition *sounds* like a truism - except that nobody was arguing that in the first place, so you've knocked down a straw man.

There are no fallacies or strawmen here. Words have meaning and the meaning of need is pretty clear. In a broad "Maslov's Hierarchy Of Needs" or in a strictly photographic context I haven't heard or seen any legitimate needs for an F/1.4 lens. There are photographic needs but I don't think super fast glass is one of them.

Haha... so perhaps it is throwing a bit of a landmine out there. 
But one can easily post an article on here about how we don't need those MP monsters. Any argument against the article could result in the counter argument that the intended audience is for hobbiests.

It's pretty obvious that "need" in a discussion of this sort is relative-to-object. Fine, you don't need an ƒ1.4 lens (or any lens) in an absolute sense.

Then what exactly are we talking about? Seems like you want to agree with me but won't allow yourself to admit it.

But you might need it in order to take certain photos in certain conditions, or to achieve focus in low light or to get the bokeh look you prefer, etc.

So in other words, you want it. Which is fine, but shouldn't be confused with needing it. I sincerely doubt the difference between F/1.4 and F/1.8 will make a tangible difference in AF, subject isolation or any other photographic parameter. I'd wager most folks would be hard pressed to tell the difference between that 2/3 stop.

The need for faster glass is an easy one to prove. If you find yourself shooting in dim lighting and your camera struggles to grab focus, then a faster lens would resolve that. Lets round up and say that the difference is 1 stop of light (so 2x more light). You are of the opinion that it would help the sensor see better and grab focus faster? So I am not going down the IQ rabbit hole, but AF speed is a measurable tangible advantage that faster glass has.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads