>>4091511Fuji offers lenses with very few to no optical flaws (and of course some more "character" lenses"). That's why a lot of them are so bulky and expensive. Not all of the prices are justified, especially for some of the older models. The 18 mm f/2, the 60 mm f/2.4 or the 14 f/2.8, for example.
Some others are great but their value is doubtful: What exactly do you gain with the 16-55 mm and does it justify paying 500 bucks more?
Until recently, there were very few AF thrid party lenses (only from Zeiss) and they were similarly priced. Much of the current third-party AF options are a bit niche (extreme focal lengths, stupidly large zoom ranges), the exception being Viltrox with their standard budget lenses.
My recommendation is not to try and get the full Fuji zoo of lenses but to figure out what primes you'd like to use and which of the zooms you will need most of the time. I have both the 12-24 mm, which I very seldom use, and the 55-200 mm, which I used to shoot with a lot but have mostly replaced with the 80 mm macro.
Nikon's pro lenses should be a little better than Fuji's overall and come with a few more features (as do Canon's and Sony's), but more so in the extrem focal ranges than in the normal ones, where Fuji's primes might even be better.
