Originally Posted by
SpoonyDan
Yes I did some time ago when the X-T1 was my only body. However the reasons I didn't invest in this lens and so much into the X-T1 system still stand. I purchased the D750 + used Tamron 70-200 2.8 instead.
For action and demanding shots in low light the 50-140 2.8 on the X-T1 still falls substantially short vs the D750 combo.
So as you can understand it's ongoing use vs investment on the X-T1 would be wasteful, I'd rather invest in glass I'll use on the D750.
I'm trying to do logical comparisons, so in this case I can have a whole stop slower glass on the D750 and achieve similar DOF. I can have near 2x stop slower glass on the D750 and achieve the same output quality when shutter speed and low light are factored. So as an example the Nikkor 24-120 F4 gives me the same DOF abilities as the Fuji 16-55 2.8, better low light performance, extra reach/zoom, and over 40% saving in cost.
In the same way the 70-200 2.8 Tamron gave me complete advantage and price saving vs the 50-140 Fuji.
Sure there is the bulk weight to consider, Though the 50-140 2.8 fuji vs the 70-200 2.8 Tamron isn't as stark as one might think (less than 300g, 10mm in length, 3mm in diameter). Vs the performance gain given on the D750 or similar body, I feel given the 50-140 is only lighting only a apcs sensor, it is too bulky and goes against the idea/point of having a more compact mirroless body.
Comparatively the Nikkor 24-120 F4 vs the Fuji 16-55 2.8 are pretty much on par for size and weight, but the practical advantage goes to the D750 due to extra zoom + cost savings + better low light.
Getting into the fast lenses the advantage seems to be mainly just the body. The X-T1 is certainly more compact and lighter, but the D750 isn't exactly a huge bulky overly heavy DSLR especially for a 35mm unit. Depending on how demanding shooting conditions are, that extra size and bulk in the body is well worth in what the D750 can offer in performance/ability.
Is my comparative logic sound?