Oh boy, where do I start?
- A Fuji X-Pro1 costs as much as my new-in-box (but refurbished, zero issues) 5D Mark II did, so there's no cost advantage.
- You lose a stop of DOF...it's nice that they have a $600 35 1.4, for example, but that's the equivalent of a $100 50 1.8 on FF. Or, I could get a $500-600 50 1.4 and have the same FOV, same low light capabilities *AND* pick up a stop of DOF.
- No ultrawide zooms (it's my go-to lens...I have a 16-35L II on my 5D2 99% of the time). Fuji's widest is a 14mm f2.8 (for $900)...which is a 21mm equivalent...not wide enough for me and even then it's a prime, not a zoom (I love primes, but for a walkaround I prefer a zoom).
- No truly fast short/medium telephoto lens (ie: for street photography). I've been using a 100 f2 and now a 135L f2 for street photography. The closest Fuji comes is a 60 f2.4, which translates roughly to 90mm f3.5 in terms of DOF...stop it down a little to sharpen it up and you're easily at f4 equivalent for DOF...not exactly something I dream about for background blur...especially considering I picked up my minty mint used (but there's no way anyone would be able to tell it's not brand new) for around $750.
An X-Pro + kit lens (to have something versatile) + 14mm + 60mm new (since you can't really find this stuff used) would cost as much as my refurb 5D2 (new) and used, but minty mint 16-35L II and 135L...(OR my old setupi of 5D2 (new) + 16-35L II (used) + 100 f2 (new) would be CHEAPER!!)...to me, considering it's wider and more bokehlicious, that's a no-brainer.
EDIT: So I've been reading up on this, and apparently Fuji is supposed to bring out an arsenal of lenses:
27mm F2.8
23mm F1.4
55-200mm F3.5-4.8 OIS
56mm F1.4
10-24mm F4 OIS
The first three are fairly ho-hum...the first one is the equivalent of the 40 2.8 Pancake on a FF, but of course you lose 1 stop of DOF...will it be priced at $175? Doubtful. Also, the 40 Pancake is an amazing little lens...it'll be hard to beat as far as IQ goes. The next one makes a good 35 equivalent (with 1.4 for speed, 1.8 equivalent for DOF), I've just never been all that excited by that focal length...the tele is just...I don't know...seems like basically the equivalent of any run of the mill 70-300, nothing special there. It will likely be a good lens, but by no means a 70-200 f2.8 (by the way, another reason to stay away from this...at 200mm equivalent, the Fuji will likely give you around f4, which is f5.6 equivalent...that's a far cry from what the 70-200 f2.8 offers both in terms of bokeh and light sensitivity).
Now, the last two could be interesting. the 56 1.4 translates into an 85 1.4, which is great, with the DOF of an 85 1.8...not bad, but I'm willing to bet that it'll cost about as much as a Sigma 85 1.4, while only giving as much DOF as an 85 1.8 (I'm so hung up on the DOF equivalency because people buy these lenses not only for the speed, but for the bokeh as well). I bought my 16-35L II for the speed (replacing my 17-40L f4, but other lenses...such as my old 100 f2 or the 135L f2 I bought specifically for shallow DOF work, more than their low-light capabilities).
Finally, the 10-24 f4, which is a 15-36 f4 equivalent...I like the range (basically the perfect walkaround for me)...BUT...it's a stop too slow. It's a stop slower than the 16-35L II (sure, it's going to be cheaper than the 16-35L II, but I doubt it'll be cheaper than the 17-40L, and I definitely need/use the 2.8 a lot...the Fuji X system would not give me the option of a truly fast UWA zoom)...and it'll have the DOF equivalent of an f5.6 lens on FF. Ultrawide zooms are by no means meant to be DOF monsters, but I do like playing around with f2.8 every now and again. The results (from a bokeh standpoint) are not amazing, but they're passable and allow for a certain amount of creativity....f5.6, however, is pretty much everything-is-in-focus for a UWA.
