>>3711295>It's well established Fuji lenses are extremely good and well priced.native fuji are a bargain compared to everyone else.
>>3711296the only time you're going into 4 figures+ with fuji is if you're buying fast telephotos at full retail. fuji aren't priced like canon/sony/nikon.
>>3711306they're sharp as fuck but characterless. great for youtube videos. if you need macro-class sharpness in everything you do buy sigmas.
>>3711307>The Fuji 56mm 1.2 costs more and is a little heavier.its light as fuck and well balanced.
it has a meh mtf but you don't buy a portrait for its mtf. the colours and images it shits out are pretty magical, if you can get past its slower whrr whrr af motors.
it's also cheap as fuck. like a quarter of what canon/sony/nikon ask for their portrait primes?
i also never really use it wide open since wide open is a meme and a crux for bad pictures where out of focus backgrounds are the most important parts of your photos :)
>>3711290whew lots of cosplaying and strawman
>>3711330if you actually genuinely demand flawless corners at f/1.2 (i dont but then again im not a museum archivist and i dont larp or cosplay one) buy the macro lenses or buy rf glass.
but you dont.
because you're a poorfag with adapted "vintage" lenses on an ebay used a7iii and cant afford sony native glass.
i actually haven't read the raging here lol so reply to this post and ask me anything fuji.
or olympus i actually like my em5ii with 12-40 f/2.8 for hiking in rain.
