>>3247318If you like shooting with fast primes, Fuji is superior to Canon's APS-C ecosystem, and there are real advantages over even full frame Canon. There are so many options for compact fast primes and almost all of them are really impressive - sharp across the frame from wide open or just one stop down, perfectly corrected for distortion, many are weather sealed, and most produce excellent microcontrast.
I'm not fully sold on Fuji's telephoto options, though. For now, I'm using the XC 50-230mm to reach past 50mm because it's so lightweight, but it's really slow (dark) at f/4.5-6.7 and the AF speed is relatively slow compared to other Fuji lenses that focus instantly. The 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 is interesting, but a little short in reach for what I want. The 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 zoom has the reach I want, but the size is massive. I wish they had a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 zoom for a nice middle ground.
A weird quirk about Fuji's zooms is that they don't correct for distortion optically, instead relying on presets applied directly to the raw files in camera, which you can't undo in Lightroom (other programs allow for it, though). This is overall minor stuff that most people would never notice unless they pixel peeped direct comparisons. I have the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 and I consider it an extremely sharp lens at all focal lengths, even though it technically is badly corrected for distortion too - I'd never know, though, since it's just THAT SHARP.
The thing about telephoto lens design, though, is you want to suck as much sharpness out of your lens as possible because you'll often be cropping in, and since telephoto lenses tend to be afflicted with pincushion distortion, the in-camera distortion corrections have a negative effect on the center sharpness - stretching the center of the image slightly to compensate for the pincushion distortion, which is kind of a stupid thing to do to an image captured with a telephoto lens, IMO. Hopefully future lenses will be better corrected.
