Upload & Sell: Off
Actually, the XF23 is, if anything, more expensive than the ZA 24…
umm, no. The ZA24 $1098 at B&H, the XF23 is $899 normally and $699 right now.
The 20 2,8 is equal to the Fuji 18 (except, true, a little less bright, but significantly cheaper).
Umm, again no. The 20/2.8 is a full stop slower and right now all of $50 cheaper. It's also at best comparable to the already significantly cheaper Sigma 19 and handles worse than either the Fuji 18 or the Sigma 19 (the focus ring is chintzy on the 20/2.8 and hard to use if the hood is mounted)
The XF 60 is nice, but with a very very slow AF.
That's not true anymore. The XF60 today focuses about as fast, if not faster than the 50/1.8 OSS does on the NEX-7.
As for the 18-55, its price new is 2/3 of the Zeiss, but its range is significantly less, both on the wide and long ends. Furthermore, with the La-EA 1, 2, 3 and 4 you have the whole range of Sony, Minolta and 3rd party lenses, which on the long end is massively more interesting than the lonely 55-200, however nice it might be. However, it is true that the 14 2,8 is very nice and all the lenses have a very consistent rendering, which is probably the big problem with Sony. I'm saying all this after having tried, enjoyed and...Show more →
While that is true, just try handholding any of those long lenses on an E mount body. Been there, done that. No way am I doing it again. One major knock I've had with all the APS-C E mount bodies except the bloody awful A3000 is that there is no way to configure them to handle well with larger lenses like pretty much any decent telephoto.
And yes, I've shot both systems as well (3 NEX bodies owned, 5N/R and a 7, collectively north of 10K frames, currently shooting an X-A1).