>>3708588Let’s see shall we
>110g body weight differenceHis manual lenses won’t weigh more on the Sony. So it ends up a small difference.
In my case I love the FE 85mm 1.8, it’s 371g. I like shooting wide open with it. So in order to have that on the Fuji, you need a 50mm 1.0, and it’d need to be very sharp wide open like the 85m is. It looks like there /might/ be one coming, and rumoured to be under 1kg, so probably 950g or so, and around $1500 USD.
So basically 1kg and $1500 USD vs 371g and $600 USD. Maybe you might want to comprise on DoF (I wouldn’t want to 85/1.8 is just enough) and get a 50mm 1.4, but I can’t actually find one for Fuji, just a 50mm f/2
The standard 28mm 2.8 equivalent (18mm f/2) certainly is extremely light), but the Samyang 24mm 2.8 is about the same weight and less than half price, 24mm is much more desirable than 28mm, though I’m still using an FD 28mm 2.8 for mine it was cheap as. The Fujifilm 14mm is more desirable, costs more though.
I think the laowa 9mm 2.8 ZeroD is better, wider, cheaper, still light. Well because the equivalent is the 15mm f/2, the f/4 is a macro lens with distortion and soft corners, the f/2 is the ZeroD version. That’s certainly an advantage, a good less expensive lighter UWA that you’ll stop down anyway, so the extra speed of the 15mm is eh.
The 16-80mm is certainly a good price and weight travel lens. The 16-55mm isn’t. While it may offer price and weight advantage versus the Sony 24-70 2.8, the actual equivalent is the 24-70 f/4 and it’s 230g lighter, which gives the Sony a weight advantage with the same lens, and the Sony is $400 USD cheaper than the Fujifilm. People may want the 2.8 for DoF, or low light, but that’s an option they can pick which doesn’t exist on the Fujifilm.
Additionally there is another option for that and it’s the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8, which is $320 USD cheaper than the Fujifilm and 100g lighter. 1/2
