When I started taking photographs a long, long time ago, maximum lens aperture was crucial because film speed were limited, and the quality started to fall off seriously above 200 ISO (I used to shoot slide film), and we didn't have image stabilisation. So a wide aperture was pretty essential to get decent images, especially for wildlife stuff.
Now we have such a massive range of ISO's available, at least at the fast end, does it really make that much difference? Now I can set the aperture to give the best sharpness for the lens, for example, set a shutter speed appropriate for the focal length and type of shot, and let the ISO take care of the rest. It seems to me that covers the vast majority of shots.
I know there will be very low light conditions where a faster lens could make a difference (the fastest I currently have is 2.8 on a Sigma 17-70mm), but I'm not a professional and paying twice as much for a lot heavier glass doesn't seem worth it, even if the IQ quality is in theory better.
I know I can get a shallower DoF with a faster lens, but again - how often am I really, really going to need that?
While I'm posting is there a thread somewhere that explains why we can't have really low ISO settings in camera (mine's a Canon 600D), to get nice slow shutter speeds without resorting to ND filters?
Thanks for reading and any comments,