>>3449273>And he has a good point.Sony lens vs. Fuji equiv:
50/1.8 vs. 35/1.4: $250 vs $430
28-70/3.5-5.6 vs. 18-55/2.8-4: $400 vs. $700
28/2 vs. 16/1.4: $450 vs. $750
50/2.8 macro vs. 35/2 (non-macro): $500 vs. $400
85/1.8 vs. 56/1.2: $600 vs. $750
35/2.8 vs. 23/2: $800 vs. $450
24-70/4 vs. 16-55/2.8: $899 vs. $899
90/2.8 macro vs. 60/2.4 macro: $1099 vs. $650
70-300/4.5-5.6 vs 55-200/3.5-4.8: $1200 vs. $700
70-200/4 vs 50-140/2.8: $1500 vs $1200
12-24/4 vs. 8-16/2.8: $1700 vs $1500
35/2.8 vs 27/2.8 (pancake category): $800 vs. $450
So score is 4 lenses where Sony is cheaper, 6 where Fuji is cheaper, and one tie. Obviously this doesn’t count lenses where one side doesn’t have anything vaguely equivalent to the other (and there are a LOT of other various features that differentiate the above. E.g., Sony’s 50/2.8 is a macro but Fuji’s 35/2 isn’t; a bunch of those Fuji lenses are weather sealed; I didn’t pay any attention at all to sharpness/resolution; etc).
And the bodies, X-T3 is $1400 vs. A7 III for $2000
So, let’s look at kits. My ideal set to cover all of my bases is a wide zoom, a normal zoom, a telezoom, a fast prime, a portrait lens, a pancake, and a macro.
X-T3 + 8-16 + 18-55 + 50-140 + 35/1.4 + 56 + 27 + 60: $6380 total
A7III + 12-24 + 24-70 + 70-200 + 50/1.8 + 85 + 35 + 90: $8848 total
Obviously, there are some heights that the Fuji just currently can't reach (e.g., there are f/2.8 zooms that don't have an f/2.0 crop equivalent), but whether or not those matter to you is personal to each individual photographer. But you can't just say "Crop is a false economy" and be done with it, because it makes you sound like an idiot.
