Do you need the "best" lens

I am writing this short bit to help out the "advanced newbie" who is experienced, has some of the concepts of photography and lens lingo. The language I will be talking in is Fuji dialect primarily, talking about Fuji lenses only.

If you have been a dpreviewer here for a while, or one of those lurkers you know "what lens should I get" appears constantly and will appear constantly forever, however short or long that may be.

Lenses have a job and lens manufacturers like to respond to the "jobs" (areas of photographic activity) photographers are active in, so weddings are often held in low light situations, sports entails high speed action, portrait requires knowledge of how to handle backgrounds, and etc. So when manufactures produce a lens, it usually has a specific purpose even though the lens can still be used in general photography. For example in full frame talk, the 85mm f1.4 or f1.8 was designed for portrait work, the 50 and 35 lenses in f1.4 were made for street work and interior photography in low light.

So a newbie comes in and asks, I'm thinking of getting the 14mm lens, or the 35mm lens or the 50mm lens, I already know what many are going to tell him or her. They are going to say - get the f1.4 its sharper and faster. Is the f1.4 faster than the f2.8 or the f2, absolutely, no debating there. But are they sharper, maybe but if they are usually only very very slightly better, all the lenses I listed above are very sharp lenses.

In fact if you enquire about the 14 f2.8 lens, the most common recommendation, in fact the great majority will recommend the 16 f1.4 over it. Is this the best advise? Maybe, maybe not. What I have done to not turn this into a too prolonged post is to provide a link to Dan Bailey, a professional photographer living in Alaska.

This first link is to provide an introduction to Dan and his work and how he evolved as a photographer. The article is from Landscape Photography Magazine, Dan is the real deal.

https://landscapephotographymagazine.com/01/06/2021/interview-with-dan-bailey/

The second link to Dan's work is a video of him reviewing five Fuji lenses, the three that stick out to me are the 14 f2.8, the 35 f2, and the 50 f2. I happen to own all three of these lens and I bought them because they were cheap (all bought used), they were excellent and they did the job concerning rural photography I was interested in. If you read the article about Dan I think it is safe to say he is thrifty. All of the lenses are cheaper compared to the faster lenses. But they are also lighter with a smaller footprint, and they are excellent for his task at hand, landscape photography.

So did Dan need the "best" lens -no. But he still was able to use the "slower" 14, 35 and 50 professionally and produce an income using them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjOGTgJ0PZg

So do you need the best lens? Maybe, maybe not!

And PS: I am not related to or have any financial interest in Dan's work, he has no clue who I am.

Lenses these days are so good, I frankly do not worry about sharpness any longer.

They differ in focal length, obviously.

They differ in the amount of background blur that is achievable, obviously.

They differ in form factor. Especially for an EDC, I care a lot about this. On active photographer duty, much less so.

They differ in light gathering ability, if that is required. On a hike for example, I do not care about this. But I generally want to have at least one bright lens available.

They differ in rendering, particularly the bokeh. On a hike for example, I do not care much about this. I'm a portrait lens, I do.

What I want to say is, what even is "the best"? The Tamron 18-300, for its unmatched focal range? The 50 f/1, for its aperture? The 27, for its size? The XC 35, for its price?

No, I say it always is a compromise. There is no best lens, except for each particular person individually.

So yes, I say I do own the best lenses. The 16-80 as a compact-ish versatile weather sealed default. The 35 f/1.4 for a compact low-light portrait companion to the Ricoh GR. The 70-300 1.4x for a wildlife tele that breaks neither my bank nor my back. The 60 f/2.4 for the occasional macro or product shot. And the 14 f/2.8 as a compact wide angle that isn't too wide for my comfort. They are the best! For me.

rsn wrote:

So do you need the best lens? Maybe, maybe not!

I have seen Dan's videos before.  Of course he doesn't need f/1.4 primes.  He is a landscape photographer.  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.

There is no spoon.

Want, need... two different words with different meanings.

I want/need the best lenses that meet the requirements of what I'm shooting.  That means that I choose the "best" lens to meet the requirements I have.  I'm not going to buy a lesser lens than what I need in order to save some money.

If I never shoot wider than f/4 why would I need or want to buy an f/1.4 lens when a) it's more expensive, b) it's heavier, and c) it isn't any sharper when closed down to f/5.6 or f/8?

On the other hand, if I shoot at f/1.4 all the time why would I ever consider an f/2 lens?  If f/1.4 is too expensive for my budget then I have to consider 3rd party lens options.

Having said that, indeed I never do shoot wider than f/2.  Usually I'm at f/5.6 or f/8, or even narrower.  So yeah.  Fujifilm's f/2 lenses meet my requirements.  The 14mm f/2.8 is also sufficient.

Everyone will acknowledge an f1.8 is a fast lens, may not be the fastest but "fast enough." Well, f2 is one third of a stop slower than f1.8. And the bokeh of an f2 lens is actually quite decent depending on the build quality. Here is a shot with the Fuji f2 for bokeh (not my photo):

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRst6A0zVwCI4mYWgaHXIm6MmnDsT5L9sft1Q&usqp=CAU

Here is an image (not mine) of photo taken with the 35mm f2 in low light, beautiful shot, wish it were mine:

https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS560x560~forums/63474839/a110609c4d804477b6b420cbb08e2400

Now in my full frame Canon gear, I have a Sigma 50 f1.4 that renders wonderful bokeh and the Canon 85mm f1.8 for those who can't or don't want to afford the f1.4 version. The 85 f1.8 also provides great bokeh.

Here is a low light from the Fuji 14mm f2.8:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ox-BswdOtj4/UQ60aYzWI-I/AAAAAAAABEs/I_eHpFAirFE/s1600/XE1_BC13_01652.jpg

I need the best lens.

I need an interesting lens, which I guess means a lens I find interesting. That means two things-- a lens I like to look through, and a lens that makes pictures I like to look at.

My three favorite Fuji lenses (35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/2, 27mm f/2.8 WR) probably appear on on quite a few other favorites lists, but I don't know if they are the "best". They are certainly not the latest and greatest, or the most expensive.

It’s a good point. I recently reflected on my experience with Fuji lenses (link in signature). TL;DR - You can get great images with any of the Fuji lenses I’ve owned, from the cheapest 15-45 to the most expensive 18 1.4. They do offer different experiences and produce different image quality. And I do find it’s more fun and versatile to use the ‘better’ lenses, so they are the ones I’ve held on to. YMMV.

I don't ..

While hiking or trekking you are always lilited by weight and size so the small prime series is welcome with a very good to excellent IQ

Another concern is not to miss the crucial instant and this leads back to the ability to have say a "good" lens most of the time with you.

I don't print larger than A3 nor I need a super shallow DOF so my lenses at F2 are ok

An even the Tamron 18-300mm when travelling with a limited gear gives good results with some PP

In fact it is not completely true, in macro I use the 80mm f 2.8, is it the best ????   

I do not need the best of any equipment, I just need what’s best for me.  All of this equipment is good enough for photography.

John Gellings wrote:

I do not need the best of any equipment, I just need what’s best for me. All of this equipment is good enough for photography.

+ 1

and another +1

rsn wrote:

Everyone will acknowledge an f1.8 is a fast lens, may not be the fastest but "fast enough." Well, f2 is one third of a stop slower than f1.8. And the bokeh of an f2 lens is actually quite decent depending on the build quality. Here is a shot with the Fuji f2 for bokeh (not my photo):

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRst6A0zVwCI4mYWgaHXIm6MmnDsT5L9sft1Q&usqp=CAU

Here is an image (not mine) of photo taken with the 35mm f2 in low light, beautiful shot, wish it were mine:

https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS560x560~forums/63474839/a110609c4d804477b6b420cbb08e2400

Now in my full frame Canon gear, I have a Sigma 50 f1.4 that renders wonderful bokeh and the Canon 85mm f1.8 for those who can't or don't want to afford the f1.4 version. The 85 f1.8 also provides great bokeh.

I think you confuse Bokeh with the amount of blur. Those are two different things.

Here is a low light from the Fuji 14mm f2.8:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ox-BswdOtj4/UQ60aYzWI-I/AAAAAAAABEs/I_eHpFAirFE/s1600/XE1_BC13_01652.jpg

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?

MarkMyWords wrote:

astonehouse wrote:

It’s a good point. I recently reflected on my experience with Fuji lenses (link in signature). TL;DR - You can get great images with any of the Fuji lenses I’ve owned, from the cheapest 15-45 to the most expensive 18 1.4. They do offer different experiences and produce different image quality. And I do find it’s more fun and versatile to use the ‘better’ lenses, so they are the ones I’ve held on to. YMMV.

Excellent write up, and quite a journey! Partly a result of being spoilt for choice…?

Thanks, yes think it was just a bit of a distraction and fun going through and trying the lenses at first but then Fuji kept bringing out new ones so just ended up with too many choices. That is their strategy for creating income!

Anyway, glad it was of some use to you. I mostly wrote it up for my own records, so that I don’t end up re-buying lenses I’ve had before 😉