Most modern lenses provide astounding image quality. The image is sharp from corner to corner, and any chromatic aberration is kept to a minimum. Flares are suppressed by smartly designed coatings. But you probably don’t need such high-quality lenses for your photography.
When buying a lens, you probably want the best possible one. That’s understandable. An inferior lens will not be able to get the most out of your camera. Cameras with high-resolution sensors require lenses that can produce an image that shows the amount of detail that fits the sensor.
Those types of lenses are truly amazing, with clever optical designs that minimize any optical flaws. These lenses produce almost no chromatic aberration, fringes, or flares. The image that is produced will be sharp from the center to the extreme edges, and vignetting is kept to a minimum.

However, these lenses come at a price that can be staggering. Somehow, we are willing to spend that amount of money. At least, I know I do. But if I’m honest, most of the time, the quality these lenses produce is unnecessary. Let me explain.
What Is the Purpose of Your Photography?
To find out if you truly need expensive, top-quality lenses, ask yourself the following questions: What do you do with your photos? Is it a hobby, or do you work on commission? If it’s the latter, what are the photos you make on commission used for? In either case, the resolution that is needed or required is probably less than what your camera is capable of.
The Hobby Photographer
If you capture photos as a hobby, what do you do with your photos? Are you showing them online, or are you printing your best work? If you print, at what size do you print? For a 12-megapixel camera at 300 dpi, it is possible to print 10 x 14 inches—or even larger if you consider viewing distance. After all, you don’t need 300 dpi for wall art.
Most modern cameras deliver at least a 24-megapixel image; that’s more than enough for large prints. If you print a 10 x 14-inch photo from that 24-megapixel image, you need to downsize the photo. Any lens errors that are present will become less visible.
However, most photos are viewed on a screen, often at a 4K resolution. For this, the photo has to be downsampled as well. If done properly, any lens errors will become completely unnoticeable.

The Professional Photographer
For the professional photographer, things aren’t that much different—at least for most professional photographers I know. Most work that is made for customers is used in low-resolution situations. Headshots are used for social media or company websites. Wedding photos are rarely used at more than a 14 x 20-inch size, and nowadays, many wedding couples view and share their photos primarily on smartphone devices.
However, as a professional photographer, you definitely want to deliver the best possible quality. Unfortunately, this is often a personal matter since the average private customer is less interested in perfectly sharp corners or the absence of fringing.
A large group of professional photographers also work for customers who require perfect quality, and the result is used in large, high-quality prints. For those photographers, top-notch lenses are a no-brainer.
You Don’t Need the Best, but Keep Away from Budget Lenses
If you’re being honest with yourself and you look at the use of your photos, there is a big chance you’ll realize that you don’t need the best lenses available. You probably don’t even need the full resolution of your camera.
However, keep away from most budget lenses as well. Although you often don’t need the best possible quality, you do want good quality. A whole range of lenses sit between the best and—dare I say it—the worst.

There is a trend among manufacturers to produce lenses that are pretty good but rely heavily on lens correction. This is good enough for most uses, and any image deterioration that might occur due to lens correction becomes invisible when downsampled for the intended use. Although I don’t like this trend very much, it does lead to a large selection of lenses that can be considered professional lenses for a reasonable price.
Reasons to Buy the Best Lenses Nevertheless
Nothing is ever as simple as it looks. Although the need for the best possible lenses can be disputed, there may be other reasons for choosing that kind of lens. It’s not all about lens quality; there is more to it.
Most of the time, the best lenses are equipped with the fastest autofocus technology, image stabilization, or an extremely large aperture. The build is rugged, and the finish is of high quality.

You may be forced to choose those lenses if you need ultra-fast autofocus or a large aperture for your photography. In that case, the high-quality imaging can be considered as a nice side effect—if you may call it that.
I tend to buy the best possible quality lenses myself. In a way, I’m not following my own advice, as mentioned in this article. But I love using lenses with large apertures, especially prime lenses, for my wedding photography and night sky photography. I don’t want to rely on lens corrections as well, which, as I mentioned, is increasingly common in the latest lenses.

Fortunately, I can rely on my older lenses. Perhaps they don’t give the best quality image like the latest ones, and perhaps they’re not designed to produce the high-resolution images for the modern sensors, but they’re more than sufficient for the intended use by customers I work for.
What Are Your Requirements?
I’m curious about your thoughts on the matter. Have you ever given this much thought? Are you always upgrading your lenses to the latest versions? Share your opinion in the comments below.
Great insights, Nando. The obsession with the best possible lens quality often overlooks real-world practicality. There’s definitely a middle ground. Brands like Sigma offer some incredible lenses that compete with first-party options at a fraction of the price. Sometimes, they’re even better. I love my Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG DN ART. It's sharp, fast, and with beautiful rendering. When the Sony GM equivalent came out, I considered it, but the price difference just wasn’t justifiable for what I needed. For most use cases, good enough is more than enough, and in some cases, it’s the smarter choice. While high-end glass has its place, especially for certain pro work, chasing the absolute best can be overkill.
Paul Tocatlian
Kisau Photography
www.kisau.com
As event clients have moved from print to onscreen display, their resolution requirements have dropped from 8-24MP 20 years ago to about 4MP today. And yet, I upgraded over the years from a 4MP Canon EOS-1D to a 61MP Sony a7RV. Today, 33-42MP is my sweet spot: not too overkill for event work, enough pixels with Crop Mode, and detailed enough for poster-size prints of my vacation landscapes. For both tasks, my Samyang primes and Tamron zooms offer plenty of IQ at affordable prices. And, these are all better than most of the "pro" lenses I used 20 years ago.
I spend way too much on lenses but I think the only people who would notice the different between a used 300 lens from 2004 and the latest and greatest 2000 lens are other people like me.
Adam Palmer
www.adamapalmer.com
Your bias against lens correction is misinformed. If a lens optically corrected distortion perfectly, it might have more coma, astigmatism, and/or field curvature because of it, and coma, astigmatism, and field curvature are very difficult or impossible to correct digitally. So, instead, a lens design might optically reduce coma, astigmatism, and/or field curvature, and then use digital correct for distortion, resulting in an overall far higher image quality.
Digital corrections are an important tool of the modern lens designer's toolbox, and are in no way an indicator of a lower quality lens - they can actually be of much higher quality because of it.
You (Probably) Don’t Need Lenses of the Best Possible Quality
these are the comparative images of the same scene at approximately the same field of view, i.e. approximately 24mm at full frame on different days and at different times, the Nikon D850 and AF-S 24mm f1.4G lens first, the Fujifilm GFX 50Sii and the GF 20-35mm f4.0 next and the Canon EOS R5 and RF 15-35mm f2.8L ISU at 20mm last and a Hasselblad X1Dii image that is still under development as i have not obtained the appropriate lens for it and that i might or might not decide to purchase
No one really needs cameras. You could draw on rocks with ochre. Just be sure your pigment is organic-vegan-free-range-ethically-sourced-carbon-neutral.
There is a school of thought that says that modern lenses are too perfect and that they produce photos that are sterile and lacking in character. Some people even prefer the look they get from older lenses.
I was once lucky to be able to see an exhibition of landscape photos by Don McCullin. I remember being amazed at how beautiful these prints were and his use of light and composition. It never occurred to me to look for any signs of astigmatism, coma distortion etc. in his work. I was too busy being blown away by how good his photos were. I think it's the skill of the photographer that matters most. I have spent quite a bit of money on lenses, but never managed to produce anything that good.
I'm fine and happy with the cheap lenses for the most part. Just for comparisons, I often download high-end lens sample raw files from DPReview, and other than pixel peeping, I don't see a discernible difference when viewed normally.
Below samples are from my Samyang 45mm f1.8 ($299) and 75mm f1.8 ($399). They're more than good enough for me.
A very well-written article. I think it’s worth adding that a good lens is always an excellent investment. Cameras evolve and improve very quickly, and as your skills grow, upgrading them makes sense. High-quality optics, on the other hand, can serve you for years without needing replacement as your expertise develops. Plus, they keep their value much better.
the surprising thing is that the Canon RF 15-35mm f2.8L ISU which is a costly professional lens somehow does not produce images as sharp as the Nikon AF-S 24mm f1.4G lens on the Nikon D850 which was something i only realised after comparing print images at 20" x 30" side by side.
also, the Fujifilm GFX 50Sii which is a 50 megapixel medium format camera together with the GF 20-25mm f4.0 outperformed both the Nikon D850 and the Canon EOS R5 which are both 45 megapixel full frame cameras in terms of image sharpness and quality even though the GF 20-35mm f4.0 is a zoom lens.
i suppose the Canon EOS R5 could be matched with high quality prime lenses for example the EF 24mm f1.4Lii with a mount adaptor to produce equivalent results as the Nikon however the current crop of RF VCM prime lenses tend to depend on correction in post to eliminate distortion
i include a Hasselblad X1Dii Adobe Lightroom photo merge as an example of Hassleblad medium format colour science though i do not currently have an XCD lens of the appropriate focal length though i do wish to purchase one in the near future
You (Probably) Don’t Need Lenses of the Best Possible Quality
this is an image from a XiaoMi 14 mobile device in Leica Authentic mode of the same scene which i have not printed as a comparison to the Nikon, Fujifilm, Canon or Hasselblad images but on screen the image looks quite decent even though it is only 12 megapixels. the XiaoMi can do 50 megapixels from any of its three cameras but only in Leica Vivid mode or so i think
XiaoMi 14, Samsung Galaxy S23, and Apple iPhone 14 Pro rainy day images in order of preference
You (Probably) Don’t Need Lenses of the Best Possible Quality
this is an image from a XiaoMi 14 mobile device in Leica Authentic mode of the same scene which i have not printed as a comparison to the Nikon, Fujifilm, Canon or Hasselblad images but on screen the image looks quite decent even though it is only 12 megapixels. the XiaoMi can do 50 megapixels from any of its three cameras but only in Leica Vivid mode or so i think
i did day time tests with an Apple iPhone and a Samsung Galaxy and found the XiaoMi's image to be the best however for night photography, i.e. computational photography, the output of my Samsung Galaxy S23 was similar to my Canon EOS R5 and significantly better than either the XiaoMi which failed to lift the blacks or the iPhone which was slightly over processed
Samsung Galaxy S23, Apple iPhone 14 Pro and XiaoMi 14 night mode in order of preference and Canon EOS R5 image as a comparison
so i apologise to the writer of this article as i have somehow changed the direction of the comments and dialogue and i did this because there are lenses and cameras and electronic devices which can create images which can be understood visually, including Lidar sensors, etc. but i was trying to make a comparison between mid to high end digital cameras and the ubiquitous mobile phones which have come a long way from the devices which could not even produce printable images
i do have one more comment based on other informal tests which we did in september or october of 2024 which is that the XiaoMi somehow does not render fabric, i.e. clothes or garments, properly under certain conditions whereas the Samsung and especially the iPhone have no problems with this. also based on those informal tests the yellows and oranges of the XiaoMi are slightly exaggerated, which is also something that is said of Leica cameras but possibly not to this extent
I need lenses whose output stands up to pixel-peeping. Generally I look for the best performance for the least price, which ends up being something like a Sony G lens or equivalent. But given the limited monetary resources I don't buy lenses very often, maybe once every couple of years at most. My next lens will be the Sigma 28-45 mm one because it is very well-engineered. I have spent time and effort with cheap lenses and they mostly are not my cup of tea except for a pancake lens from Canon that I use on my Sony body, a lens that has excellent optical quality but marginal at best autofocus performance.