I have begun reconsidering the "need" for very wide apertures, wider than f/2.0. I think it was my Zeiss ZM lenses that started me thinking. Most of them have f/2.8 as their widest apertures. I find that f/2.8 produces a wide enough depth of field to be useful for un-posed people and for many objects. I checked my father's old gear from the mid 1900's and found that he got by with f/2.8 very well indeed. So my latest thinking is to use wider than f/2.8 only for very special purposes where the extremely shallow depth of field is actually a good thing. Those opportunities exist, but they are rare. I am beginning to avoid thinking that my lens's "character" is only best shown wide open. What do the rest of you think? Do you tend toward wide open? How do you choose your apertures?