The recent launch of the Fujifilm GFX100RF has stirred quite a debate in the photography community. Many Fujifilm fans were frustrated by the decision to equip the camera with a fixed f/4 lens instead of a faster option like f/2.8 or even f/2. This backlash got me thinking: does a faster lens always make a camera better? And more importantly, does it help us produce a better image? The more I think about it, the more I realize that the obsession with wider apertures might not be that beneficial for visual output, but rather for bragging rights that often overlook crucial trade-offs.
As a commercial hospitality and industrial photographer, I am not immune to the allure of fast lenses, especially when shooting lifestyle work. Lenses like the Zeiss Otus series, designed to deliver superb performance at maximum aperture, are undeniably tempting. However, when weighing the financial, practical, and creative trade-offs, I have chosen to accept the compromise. What puzzles me is the number of photographers who insist on shooting everything at the widest possible aperture—even to the extent of embracing older lenses with inherent flaws as “character” or “nostalgia.”
There’s no denying that fast lenses have advantages, such as allowing more light into the sensor and achieving a shallower depth of field. But in reality, we don’t need them for the vast majority of shots. Creating an image with a blurred background to isolate a subject is great for reducing distractions, but sometimes maintaining background context is what sets a skilled photographer apart. In other words, depth of field should be used deliberately, and having a lens with a wide aperture doesn’t automatically make an image better. In fact, it can introduce drawbacks like reduced sharpness, higher costs, and optical aberrations, leading to a set of practical and creative limitations.
The Practical Trade-offs
Assuming all factors of the lens are equal, increasing a lens’s maximum aperture directly affects its cost and weight. And despite the price premium, there is almost no guarantee of better performance in return. In fact, slower lenses are often easier to design for optimal sharpness and correction. A well-designed f/2.8 lens might outperform an f/1.2 lens in sharpness and contrast, especially in the corners. Practically, by the time you stop down to f/5.6, both lenses might not have much difference anymore. If anything, the faster lens might experience a drop in performance since it was probably designed to be used at a wider aperture. That means, for the rest of the time, you’ll just be carrying additional weight and cost around for minimal benefit.
Leica is a prime example of this price-performance trade-off. Their 50mm lens lineup ranges from a few thousand dollars for an f/2.4 to well over $10,000 for an f/0.95—a staggering price jump! And with that cost increase comes added weight and bulk. If portability and ease of use matter, a slower lens might be the smarter choice.
I am not an optical engineer, but after using a wide variety of lenses from various brands, I have come to understand that lens design is all about balance. Faster lenses often introduce optical challenges like reduced sharpness, chromatic aberrations, edge softness, and distortion when used wide open. To compensate for these flaws, manufacturers will add corrective glass elements, which end up making the lens heavier and more complex to manufacture. This usually ends up causing more lens variation, where some copies may perform better than others. That being said, a well-designed f/2.8 lens can outperform an f/1.2 lens in sharpness and contrast, especially in the corners. And the benefits of a wider aperture lens can quickly diminish when you start weighing the pros and cons. It is just harder to justify the increase in cost over something that we do not use that often.
Beyond image quality, fast lenses also come with usability trade-offs. Achieving precise focus at f/1.2 is much harder than it seems. The inherent shallow depth of field demands extreme focusing accuracy, and the added weight from all the corrective glass may also cause the autofocus systems to struggle and move the focusing elements slower. In other words, it is practically a lot harder to hit and achieve 100% of the lens’s potential with accurate focusing on a fast lens than you might think, with slight misses exaggerated by the shallow focal plane. Add potential focus shift issues into the equation, and things might get even trickier. And let’s not forget practicality. If you have ever tried shooting at f/1.2 in bright daylight, you’ll know an ND filter is definitely a mandatory accessory to prevent overexposure.
The Creative Limitations
Let’s be real: a fast lens is a specialist tool. Its real benefit is truly only realized when used wide open with a somewhat near subject and a distant background, creating an image with that creamy, dreamy bokeh background. However, you are losing a lot of benefits where context can be brought into your composition through storytelling, especially when everything in the background is rendered out of focus and unidentifiable.
Some subjects like landscapes, architecture, and group shots will benefit from more depth of field. While shooting everything wide open might result in aesthetically pleasing photos, they could be perceived as lacking the detail and depth necessary to make the composition work, limiting your creative execution—ultimately making your image weaker in visual narrative, though it might still be satisfying to look at.
That being said, there are a lot of real-world scenes in our daily lives that will not benefit from excessive depth of field separation. For example, when a subject and background are close together, or when a subject is very far away and flat. With this context in mind, here comes the dilemma: since having a fast lens that you are going to use wide open all the time will limit your approach creatively, then why have it in the first place?
Final Thoughts
A faster lens has its place, especially in low-light situations or when subject isolation is key. But that doesn’t mean it’s always the right tool to deploy. If you frequently find yourself stopping down your fast lens to f/2.8 or smaller, ask yourself this: do you really need that f/1.2 glass? Or is it just another case of chasing specs for bragging rights rather than choosing the best tool for the job?
What are your thoughts? Have you ever found yourself choosing a slower lens over a fast one? Let’s discuss.
I have a 300 mm f/2.8 that I sometimes couple with a 2x extender giving me f/5.6, which is great. However, the lens is huge and heavy and sometimes I miss birds-in-flight shots because it’s so heavy. I’m looking at a 500 mm f/6.3. Half the weight.
I know right! Using these big telephoto without a monopod is almost impossible.. If my memory serve me right.. Canon did release a 800mm f/11 lens, very portable.. but with that lens, its basically useless in dim light and borderline useless in birding even in the forest where light is not widely available..
I owned 300mm 2.8 L IS (Canon). Probably the best lens I have ever owned. It was replaced by my current 100-500 L IS. I recently did a retrospective of my photo library for a book project. I discovered I did “Safari West” with both lenses. The zoom gave me way better images than the prime because of its lower weight, smaller size, and no composition restrictions. I do have a fast short prime for portraits and astro photography. But the big white primes proved fools gold in my use experience.
When the size and weight is not restricting, we tend to enjoy the shooting experience more and hence loving the results a little bit more with the expanded possibilities.
the issue though is when you only have one lens that is fixed to the body (as in this example - the Fujifilm GFX100RF), then it better be the right bloody lens! as you have no other option. So then you arguably want a lens that has a good bokeh and has a nice wide aperture.
I would respectfully argue differently, in that if I'm taking out a fixed lens camera, of which I have 2 currently then I know exactly what lens I have and what it's characteristics are and what I don't want is a large, heavy option. I've a GFX100RF and that has got it about right in terms of lens field of view, max aperture and size. The much wanted f2.8 or f2 on that camera would make it a proverbial brick and would defeat the purpose of making it. If I want that I take a GFX with an appropriate lens and accept those different tradeoffs, eg weight, size etc
I understand where you are coming from.. Though I would want to disagree on the faster lens being the right lens. Anyway in the market currently we have the Leica Q series which I love a lot offering that kind of specs. I would say for medium format to support that kind of aperture, the lens would have to be giant in size negating the benefit of compact size.
I agree that compact size should be a priority for this kind of camera. A relative of mine owns a Q43 - and its a beautiful and fairly small camera, with a fairly light weight too - so it does show that with a full frame body and f/2 lens you can get extremely high quality images, admittedly with a large budget. I think its close to the sweet spot, apart from price. I agree that with a medium format sensor this becomes more problematic and so perhaps f4 is good enough. I wish that Nikon would have a fixed lens full frame camera, as an option, as for me the UI (where all the controls are) is a really important feature too (and I am used to Nikon, since about the 1980s).
Yes, I would like to think the full frame technology has become so mature that it balances all aspects in photography, if I may say, the standard of photography. You can have speed, good low light performance, good video, great lens, good dynamic range, all in a single package.
I believe its just a matter of time when Nikon realise they have been losing out so much for not making one to finally release one. Time will tell.
Speaking within medium format size sensors I wouldn't want a massive super wide aperture lens on a fixed lens camera either. I'd never take that thing any where except very specific shoots.
I shoot all of my personal (and some professional) work on a Leica with 35mm f1.4 lens. I shoot everything wide open. I agree with everything you wrote about why this approach isn't always logical, but I like the challenge of nailing focus manually at f1.4. Shooting on Nikon Z9 makes things a bit too easy.
Modern setup makes everything so easy. I would want to shoot wide open just to get that look. But sadly, I do not have the eye for it haha everytime i compose, my eye and brain is automatically above f4..
Nikon really has hit it out of the ball park with their manual focus assists. I have a Zf and you're right. it's almost too east lol.
Good points, thanks
Remember also that this camera's sensor is larger than a normal FF sensor (though not quite true MF). The lens gives an equivalent view/dof of a 28mm f/3.2. You're not really going to find a MF lens at f/2 - let alone f/1.2 (well there is the Hassy 110 f2 - but that's a completely different animal).
Yes you are right. it can be f/1.2 but the depth of field might just be too shallow and the lens might be too huge to fit into the compact sized body.
I think you're missing my point. f/4 is not a "slow" lens on a MF body - its roughly equivalent to f/2.8 on FF. To my knowledge, no one makes a f/1.X lens for MF, and there's really only one f/2 lens that I could find. The fastest widely produced MF lenses are f/2.8 - which is only 1 stop from this f/4 lens. The physics and optics required to make a f/1.2 lens for MF with any sort of decent performance to be put in front of a 100MP sensor are somewhat ridiculous - and it would be a $50k lens. Think of the difference between the f/1.2 lenses for APC vs full frame in size and weight, and then make it that much bigger and heavier again. Take a new Nikkor Noct and then double the size and weight.
And... as for f/1.X lenses for MF — Fujifilm make not one but two of them: the 55mm and the 80mm, both f/1.7. The 55 is my current absolute favorite in the system; the 80, while it offers even more potential subject isolation, is reputedly slightly inferior optically, reportedly has some quirks in use, and just isn't a focal length I crave on these cameras anyway.
But at any rate, the 55/1.7 is beautiful glass which makes lovely photos wide open, BUT— I often stop it down a bit because razor-thin DOF isn't always what I'm after. So given that I often shoot this lens at f/2.8-4.0, even in iffy indoor available light — and often use relatively fast shutter speeds because my subjects insist on being alive and moving around — I'm not at all afraid of the GFX100RF's f/4 lens and lack of IBIS, if we get something so nice and easy to tote around.
By the way — if anyone wants a mildly spicy take, here's mine: the 55/1.7 on one of the GFX100 bodies gives you something functionally very similar to the Q3 43, except better in every way except size and weight.
Exactly my point of view! Spot on! But for the last part. I would still go for Q3 if money isn't an issue. I think we can't really get something that compact and flexible. at least for the things i shoot on the side as a hobby.
No, actually i fully agree with what you said. I do think that f/4 on medium format is completely practical. In fact most of my lenses for working is f/4 on full frame. To keep them budget friendly, lighter and practical to bring around and shoot for long hours.
There also exists a Fuji GF 110mm f/2, which is excellent (and my current second-favorite lens in the system) — but despite its high optical quality wide open, I often shoot it stopped down a bit, because I'm not in love with people only having one eye in focus. With that lens, f/3.2 is kind of a sweet spot for relatively tight portraits. But it is nice to have f/2 available for occasional shooting use and for definitive focusing even when stopping down; the cost is the weight and bulk you have to carry around. But the 110 does actually balance just fine on the also-not-compact GFX 100 II.
What most people dont consider when complaining is practicality of usage. Most people are viewing images in thumbnail sized and wanted all the bokeh in the world on their image. which if you were to zoom in, its probably just the eyelid that are in focus.
+Matt Rennels Hasselblad has a very compact lens (350g) with 38mm of focal distance and f/2.5 (f/2.0 equivalent for 35mm). I bet complains would be very rare if Fuji put a lens like that in the GFX100RF. What's left of the "MF feel" of a camera if not the ease of shallow DOFs? Reminding that sharpness also goes away pretty quickly if you have to rise the ISO frequently.
If you have a fast lens, you're not forbidden to close the diaphragm. You just have the option to use larger apertures when needed. And there are lots of situations when it's needed or desired. Of course landscape photographers tend to despise these needs.
For the similar apertures, a faster lens will probably offer the same quality — if not better — than slower lenses. So we have left the weight and cost issues.
The thing is, if you spend so much in a fixed-lens outdoor camera, you expect it to at least offer the possibility — not the obligation — of shooting faster than f/4. Like for example the Leica Q3: a compact camera, in the same price range as the mentioned Fuji, and it offers f/1.7 of aperture. And I bet its optics are far from bad.
Ok, it's not Medium format. So, Hasselblad has a very compact lens (only 350g) with similar focal distance as the GFX's and f/2.5 aperture. Again, I bet it has bad optics like mentioned in this article.
It could be done if Fuji really wanted.
In the end of the day, what makes a medium format camera so special and unique anyway?
As I understand, the major feature is its sharpness (which Fuji does have) and the easily-obtained shallower depth of field, which in this case Fuji is denying buyers. Sharpness, by the way, quickly goes away in low light/high ISO situations.
I totally get where you are coming from. With full frame technology being so mature, honestly I do point people away from the current medium format (small sized medium format). The narrative of having a larger format produces better image has diminished to a point that I don't think it matters that much anymore when you look at it from the end usage standpoint. As people are mostly viewing their images in thumbnail size anyway.
That being said, I invested into medium format just because of how it renders perspective. Think of it as getting a wider perspective when standing at the same spot as full frame or APS-C cameras or the ability to frame closer using a more tele photo lens (compressing the scene differently) but honestly, the difference is quite minimal. If you don't see it, you don't need it.
I'm not sure of what you mean in the second paragraph. Perspective, by definition, depends exclusively on your point of view — in other words, where you're standing. There's not much left for the lens to "render", other than geometric distortion, sharpness in corners, vignetting and chromatic aberration — which doesn't seem to me to be what you were referring to.
If you take a 28mm full frame lens and take a photo standing in the same spot as with the Fuji, both should project the same image in the sensor — perspective wise.
Perhaps the feel you mention is due to the sensor proportion (4:3 on MF versus 3:2 on FF)?
They don't actually look the same. Do bear with me as I try to word it in a way that is understandable. For example standing 3m away from a subject and assuming the constant here will be 28mm full frame equivalent focal length. On a medium format, you will be using a 35mm lens to achieve the same framing. On an APSC you are looking at approx 18mm lens to achieve the same framing. Which is where it gives different "compression". That being said, they are pretty minimal. A more obvious example that I see is from wider angle lenses in smaller format. The edges are usually "stretched"
Yes, these are where I think interchangeable lens format cameras come in. I would assume if one is into this, they would probably have a range of lenses that they would want to play with for the characters.
I'll always take the extra stops -- why would you not want the range?
If extra weight, cost and size isn't your concern then why not
meh. It's not worth the weight and size trade off for one or two more stops of light for me. Modern cameras are so good at high ISO's it's not really that much of an issue anymore.