(or: how to get screwed with a smile and empty your wallet while you’re at it)

They brainwashed you.
Told you that without an f/1.4 lens—without that magic little number engraved on the barrel—you’re nothing. That real photographers haul around monstrous glass, lenses so wide you could shove your fist inside. That if you can’t brag about your f/1.2 on some forum or at dinner, you’re not even worthy of photographing the neighbor’s cat.
It’s all a neatly packaged lie. A fantasy sold to you in convenient monthly installments. Pure marketing. Optical porn for people who mistake specs for talent.

All images are shot with RICOH GRIII 18mm f/2.8 - copyright by Andrea Bigiarini - All rights reserved 2023

Shooting in the dark?
Wake up.
It’s 2025. Modern cameras chew through high ISOs like it’s nothing. Shoot at ISO 6400, print it huge—no one will see a damn thing.
But sure, you need your f/1.4. To feel heroic. To justify the thousand-plus dollars you dropped at the camera shop. Meanwhile, a humble f/2.8 does the same job, at half the weight, half the volume, and zero headaches.
It was never the darkness you needed to conquer. It was your insecurity.

Sharpness?
Don’t make me laugh.
People buy ultra-fast lenses thinking they’ll get diamond-crisp images wide open. Then they check the files and see the corners dancing, sharpness melting like ice cream on asphalt, edges tinted purple and green like a two-day-old bruise.
Know when these lenses actually perform their best? At f/2 or f/2.8.
Yeah. The same apertures where a “normal” lens is already killing it.
Congrats: you paid double or triple just to stop down and land right back at square one.

Depth of field?
At f/1.4, depth of field is a joke. Thin as a razor blade. Maybe thinner—more like a whisper.
Focus on one eye and the other’s already drifting off. Eyelashes wave goodbye. The tip of the nose dissolves. Your subject breathes, and poof—gone.
Nobody tells you that, often, a little more depth is better. Keeping the whole face sharp, or at least giving yourself a safety margin, makes for a more natural, less pretentious image.
But sure. You wanted that orgasmic blur. Congrats. Now live with it.

Bokeh?
Ah, bokeh. That Japanese word that sounds all cultured and mysterious. As if saying “bokeh” by itself could turn any random shot into high art.
Too bad bokeh isn’t just about aperture.
It’s focal length. It’s subject-to-background distance. It’s lens design.
And surprise: an 85mm f/2 will melt the background and wrap your subject in creamy dreamland way more than a 35mm f/1.4 ever could.
Magic? No. Just physics. The kind most folks refuse to learn, preferring to worship spec sheets instead.

The moral of the story:
Those ultra-fast lenses? Luxurious toys. Fun, sure. Interesting for experiments or weird artistic kicks.
But they’re not magic wands. They won’t suddenly make you a better photographer, or guarantee magazine-worthy shots.
More often than not, a good f/2 or f/1.8 is sharper, more honest, way lighter. Costs a quarter as much. Saves your back and your wallet—so you can actually spend money on trips or real projects.

The rest? Just an expensive illusion. A lie you tell yourself so you can feel special while shooting ten identical portraits with buttery backgrounds.

And in the end, if you’ve got even a shred of honesty left, you’ll look in the mirror and whisper:
“It’s not the lens that makes the photo. It’s me. Or, more accurately: my complete lack of vision.”
Accept that. Really let it sink in.
And maybe—just maybe—you’ll start making images that actually mean something.
Even without a worthless f/1.4 trophy dangling from your neck.