[JJ_SO]

...
Instead of comparing the Sigma 24 f1.4 which is a 3rd party option to the Fuji 16 f1.4, you should consider a Nikon or Canon one. For instance the Nikon 24 f1.4 sells for nearly 1800 CHF. Not exactly in the same price category as the Fuji ;-)

I disagree. If the Sigma was worse than it's Nikon competition, you were right, but it's equally good or better - and the only thing which is worse is the lack of the rubber casket around the mount. Else than that it's on Nikon level. And here we find another problem - in Fuji land, there simply is no 3rd party AF lens manufacturer. Either you're happy with all Fuji lenses you want to buy or you need to look at some other cameras.

Not to mention the weird and inconsistent way Fuji lets me (or more, lets me NOT) override the AF. That is a weakness of their concept and it bothers me constantly - which is why I prefer Nikon.

In my eyes, 3rd party today is not worse than genuine stuff, at least not in the Art range or the Tamron range (although there's no 24/1.4). And I was only comparing the speed, not the equivalent DoF, which is always a big reason to go wild on OL.

So, why limiting lens choices by going APS-C?

[thxbb12]

You were mentioning that FF is not more expensive. Third party alternatives are always cheaper (regardless if they're better or not) than brands' lenses. This is why I mentioned Nikon vs Fuji. Now, I agree that in Fuji's case that's really a shame they don't open their mount info to more third parties (like Sigma).
But regardless, overall, APS-C is much cheaper than FF.

As far as limited lens choice it totally depends on your point of view and use.
For me, it's the exact opposite as you: Fuji is the least limited system at the moment. For my use case, no FF or other system beats it in terms of lens selection (whether ML or not, regardless of sensor size).

[JJ_SO]

I'd agree that on a given space you can cram in more Fuji glass than bigger "FF" lenses, but for my use case the limitations are too big - but only because I use DLSRs, too. If I'd stay strictly within mirrorless systems, I had to agree with your point. And if I'd only do photobooks until A3 max, it would not bother me to use FF (although I still prefer the ergonomics of a Nikon against the stupid and inconsistent dials, rings, wheels and buttons of Fuji).

"For my use case" it would be far too much of a fuzz to constantly change settings for BiF back to landscape, then portraits. It's the overall system experience which to me makes Fuji a much less versatile system - but good within it's bounds. Usually we say "for big pictures you have a bigger distance to look at them". But I rethought, that depends very much of the wall they hang on and the room they hang in. If I can get closer, I naturally will go closer. And if I spot the first weak border, smeared contour, I'll keep that in mind even if the picture is a nice composition. It's sometime like van Gogh would have used a felt pen to "improve" the contours.

[Brightcolours]

But regardless, overall, APS-C is much cheaper than FF.

Lets examine that then?

One of the most prolific Fuji X-mount lenses is the 56mm f1.2 R. US price: $999.
FF equivalents:
Tamron SP 85mm f1.8 VC USD. US price: $749.
Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM. US price: $420.
Nikkor AF-S 85mm f1.8 G. US price: $477.
Sony FE 85mm f1.8. US price: $598.

Hmmm...

Ok, I'll try again. 

One of the most prolific Canon EF-M lenses is the EF-M 22mm f2 STM. US price: $249.
FF equivalent:
Canon EF 40mm f2.8 STM. US price: $199.

Seems that FF equivalents are not more expensive, rather it looks like only slower APS-C lenses are cheaper than faster FF lenses.

[JJ_SO]

But regardless, overall, APS-C is much cheaper than FF.

Lets examine that then?

One of the most prolific Fuji X-mount lenses is the 56mm f1.2 R. US price: $999.
FF equivalents:
Tamron SP 85mm f1.8 VC USD. US price: $749.
Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM. US price: $420.
Nikkor AF-S 85mm f1.8 G. US price: $477.
Sony FE 85mm f1.8. US price: $598.

Hmmm...

Ok, I'll try again. 

One of the most prolific Canon EF-M lenses is the EF-M 22mm f2 STM. US price: $249.
FF equivalent:
Canon EF 40mm f2.8 STM. US price: $199.

Seems that FF equivalents are not more expensive, rather it looks like only slower APS-C lenses are cheaper than faster FF lenses.

We can go on: Single long tele zoom from 
Fuji 100-400: 1690.- CHF
Canon: 1870.- CHF
Sigma: 810.-
Tamron 750.-   (+tripodfoot with Arcaswiss socket: 150.-)

All two third party lenses are more practical than the Fuji, less heavy, more compact and at APS-C similar or better performing. Not to mention the superior customization.

Shall I go on with 150-600 range? Sigma sports is cheaper AND better than the Fujinon. MUCH better to customize while the Fujinon is ridiculously limited in critical aspects.

Wide angle zoom:

Fujinon 8-16/2.8: 2200.-
Sigma 12-24/4: 1540.-
Sigma 14-24/2.8: 1300.-
Nikon 14-24/2.8: 2300.-
Sony 12-24/4: 1660.-
Canon 11-24/4: 2750.-

All FF wideangles will give better detail if the right body is behind them. The Nikon will deliver more flare, but the Sigma already is much better. It's the alternatives existing for FF, but not (much - there's a bit Laowa and a tad Samyang MF glass) for Fujifilm. And although Fujinons are great, none of them is THAT great to do the impossible.

Standard zoom:
Fuji 18-55/2.8-4.0: 690.-
Nikon 24-85/3.5-4.5 (admittedly crap, but FF): 528.-
Canon 15-85/3.5-5.6: 650.- (including 50% more range)
Nikon 16-85/3.5-5.6: 690.- (including...)

[thxbb12]

We can always cherry pick particular lenses and they are some bargains like the Nikon 50mm f1.8G and 35 1.8G which are not greatly built or all that hot optically.
The Fuji f1.4 counterpart are more expensive but better built and better optically.
Now, if you look at the price of the Nikon Z lenses, the prices are much higher for similar f1.8 lenses...

Btw, Joju the Fuji 18-55 f2.8-4 is not 690 but 498.
Non of the zooms you compare it to are as good optically or as fast (the APS-C ones) and they are all more expensive.

With FF, you have either the choice of huge and crazy expensive glass or more reasonably priced but not that great (albeit some exceptions).
In ML land, there is almost nothing. The only example we have so far is Sony (huge and expensive), Z and R which have almost no options.

Obviously manufacturers could release slower more compact FF lenses if they wanted to but they're not going to. So what is the alternative? APS-C.

[JJ_SO]

....
The Fuji f1.4 counterpart are more expensive but better built and better optically.
....
Now, if you look at the price of the Nikon Z lenses, the prices are much higher for similar f1.8 lenses...

Btw, Joju the Fuji 18-55 f2.8-4 is not 690 but 498.

I checked at Heiniger and digitec (629.-)

Non of the zooms you compare it to are as good optically or as fast (the APS-C ones) and they are all more expensive.

With FF, you have either the choice of huge and crazy expensive glass or more reasonably priced but not that great (albeit some exceptions).
In ML land, there is almost nothing. The only example we have so far is Sony (huge and expensive), Z and R which have almost no options.

Obviously manufacturers could release slower more compact FF lenses if they wanted to but they're not going to. So what is the alternative? APS-C.

Florent, we can go on like this, but then you should get ready for some solid "no, it's not true!" There's always a certain situation when one lens of an format will be cheaper or more expensive - but the question also is, what will get you for more or less money

Fuji lenses are made of metal - on the outside. Inside rather soft plastic rules, you hear rattle, focus motors always on, OIS as well, even if the switch says "Off". It's a fairytale created by Fuji users and it is simply untrue.

The Fuji 16/1.4 stands no chance at all against the Sigma 24/1.4. Otherwise I'd have noticed. Keep on dreaming about.     Even if it's my favourite lens of the Fuji system.

Wait a minute: At first you said APS-C lenses are cheaper than FF lenses, not matter if DSLR or ML and all of a sudden you (cherry) pick out the S lenses for Nikon Z? These play in a different league than the Fuji stuff. No clutches and all time focus override, no flimsy, too-light-going aperture rings. No need to OIS as it's in the body - if you try to sail that ship, it's too easy to wreck it.

The APS-C zooms from Nikon and Canon have more reach. The 16-55/2.8 ...  well, just read OL's results about a disappointing yet expensive lens. 960.- at digitec, 24-70 lenses (f/4, as it's equiv. , hahaha) sell from 945.-

[thxbb12]

....
The Fuji f1.4 counterpart are more expensive but better built and better optically.
....
Now, if you look at the price of the Nikon Z lenses, the prices are much higher for similar f1.8 lenses...

Btw, Joju the Fuji 18-55 f2.8-4 is not 690 but 498.

I checked at Heiniger and digitec (629.-)

Non of the zooms you compare it to are as good optically or as fast (the APS-C ones) and they are all more expensive.

With FF, you have either the choice of huge and crazy expensive glass or more reasonably priced but not that great (albeit some exceptions).
In ML land, there is almost nothing. The only example we have so far is Sony (huge and expensive), Z and R which have almost no options.

Obviously manufacturers could release slower more compact FF lenses if they wanted to but they're not going to. So what is the alternative? APS-C.

Florent, we can go on like this, but then you should get ready for some solid "no, it's not true!" There's always a certain situation when one lens of an format will be cheaper or more expensive - but the question also is, what will get you for more or less money

Fuji lenses are made of metal - on the outside. Inside rather soft plastic rules, you hear rattle, focus motors always on, OIS as well, even if the switch says "Off". It's a fairytale created by Fuji users and it is simply untrue.

The Fuji 16/1.4 stands no chance at all against the Sigma 24/1.4. Otherwise I'd have noticed. Keep on dreaming about.     Even if it's my favourite lens of the Fuji system.

Wait a minute: At first you said APS-C lenses are cheaper than FF lenses, not matter if DSLR or ML and all of a sudden you (cherry) pick out the S lenses for Nikon Z? These play in a different league than the Fuji stuff. No clutches and all time focus override, no flimsy, too-light-going aperture rings. No need to OIS as it's in the body - if you try to sail that ship, it's too easy to wreck it.

The APS-C zooms from Nikon and Canon have more reach. The 16-55/2.8 ...  well, just read OL's results about a disappointing yet expensive lens. 960.- at digitec, 24-70 lenses (f/4, as it's equiv. , hahaha) sell from 945.-

Fuji lenses are better built than Nikon's G lenses, this is no fairy tale...

Sigma ART lenses are great but huge. That's my point (besides crazy price if one goes with first party lenses): hence APS-C makes much more sense for me.
I threw the Nikon Z lenses in there because they are "only" f1.8 one yet are huge too and costly.

The Fuji 16-55 f2.8 is expensive but much cheaper than the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 or Nikon 17-55 f2.8 (APS-C). In Nikon land there is no equivalent to it and Canon's 24-70 f4 is shorter albeit a little bit cheaper indeed.

Btw, here is the 18-55 at 498 chf (straight from toppreise.ch): https://www.digifuchs.ch/index.php?ref=tp&advised_product=16743

[thxbb12]

Actually, let me phrase it a bit differently by being a bit more specific. This is what I currently use which summarizes my needs:

For portraits and landscapes:

• Fuji X-T20
  
• Fuji 56mm f1.2
  
• Fuji 35mm f1.4
  
• Fuji 14mm f2.8
  

When I need reach or focal versatility:

• Olympus E-M10 II
  
• Panasonic 12-60 f3.5-5.6 (the aperture doesn't matter here since it is used for landscapes)
  
• Panasonic 35-100 f2.8
  

I'm not interested in traditional DSLR because 1) I used to have a Nikon D800 and anything between f1.4 and 2.0 was useless due to chronic inaccuracies (and I'm done wasting my time and energy calibrating my lenses), 2) way too large.

What's better in terms of value/portability/IQ? 
If you have something better in mind, I'm all ears :-)

[JJ_SO]

Fuji lenses are better built than Nikon's G lenses, this is no fairy tale...

Sigma ART lenses are great but huge. That's my point (besides crazy price if one goes with first party lenses): hence APS-C makes much more sense for me.
I threw the Nikon Z lenses in there because they are "only" f1.8 one yet are huge too and costly.

The Fuji 16-55 f2.8 is expensive but much cheaper than the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 or Nikon 17-55 f2.8 (APS-C). In Nikon land there is no equivalent to it and Canon's 24-70 f4 is shorter albeit a little bit cheaper indeed.

Btw, here is the 18-55 at 498 chf (straight from toppreise.ch): https://www.digifuchs.ch/index.php?ref=tp&advised_product=16743

There's close to no point to buy genuine lenses when you can get the same or better optical quality from other manufacturers and the lenses work well together with the bodies. I don't have to stay in Nikonland, but I have to stay in Fujiland - more choices are better. Please feel free to prove your statement that Fujinon lenses are better built than Nikon's G lenses - and keep in mind, that G lenses can have barrels made of hiqh density plastics as well as made of magnesium. G alone is no quality label. And I saw into a 56/1.2 after it cracked open because the 4 screws let go.

The Sigma 24/1.4 Art is just about same size and weight of it's Nikon counterpart, the 35/1.4 as well. The 100-400 (no matter if Sigma or Tamron) is smaller than the Fujinon 100-400 as well, and looking at the brick of 8-16... it's 805 grams, the Sigma 1150 grams - so the Sigma is 40% heavier and draws a 100% bigger image. And is still 40 % less expensive... Okay, less weight costs usually more.

I'm not sure if you can get this


out of that


I also would bet the Sigma 16/1.4 for Sony is on par with the Fujinon 16/1.4, although cheaper.

The Z lenses (S-line) are sort of disappointing when it comes to distortions, although they have no low price point - but then, the new 24-70/2.8 is much steeper in price. And it doesn't justify the costs over the competitors from Sigma and Tamron.

I got it in the first place that you were talking about your purposes, but for mine I prefer FF. Not necessarily the carrying exercise, though...

And btw. digifuchs might have taken the winter rebate of Fuji away - then the others are also 120.- cheaper. But it's not always close to Christmas... depending where you'd buy the range is from 500-850 CHF - and the majority of dealers sells it for 620-660.- With the cheap offers I first suspect grey import. But I bought the 16/1.4 from them and everything was like it it should have been.