FujiFilm charges more for lenses (than Canon) because they can.

• FujiFilm has a near monopoly on X-mount lenses. Other options include cheap manual lenses and expensive Zeiss lenses. This is changing somewhat with the introduction of Viltrox autofocus lenses.

• Image quality of FujiFilm lenses is nearly guaranteed to be very good. Even XC lenses perform above expectations (based on their price). FujiFilm has to maintain high standards because they have a small market share.

• Build-quality of XF lenses generally seems to be very good. XC lenses are mostly plastic and priced accordingly.

• FujiFilm is like Apple. Customers buy into the system expecting to pay more, so they do. (It's not as extreme as some other companies though.)

Canon charges less for some lenses because they have to.

• There is more competition for EF and EF-S lenses. This is not yet the case for RF lenses, which I expect would be priced higher.

• Lenses target different market segments. There are no L lenses in the price range you describe. FujiFilm has only recently begun targeting different markets the way Canon has (XC, XF, Red Badge, Cinema, etc).

• Many Canon lens housings are nearly entirely plastic. FujiFilm's plastic lenses (XC) are similarly priced.

• Image quality of Canon lenses tends to fall in line with price. However, there are exceptions.

• Canon needs lower-priced lenses to attract people who would otherwise purchase third-party counterparts.

---

Consider EF-S 18-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM vs XF 18-135/3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR (used with the same FujiFilm body):

• Price:
  • EF-S 18-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM – retail ~$600; used ~$200. Canon has multiple variations of 18-135/3.5-5.6, so market confusion may have pushed the price down. Many USM lenses are listed for sale as STM, and vice versa.
  • XF 18-135/3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR – retail ~$900; used ~$500.
• The EF-S lens is mostly plastic and not weather resistant.
• The XF lens is sharper. It is a better lens in both build and optical quality, but the difference is only visible when pixel peeping.

Is the difference worth $300? For me, not really. But to use the EF-S lens on a FujiFilm body requires a $300 smart adapter, which negates any potential saving. The lens does not work with the less expensive adapters, and it cannot be manually focused with passive adapters. So if you want an 18-135/3.5-5.6 lens on a FujiFilm camera, there isn't much of a choice.

Is the price difference worth buying into the Canon system vs FujiFilm? That's up to you.

What about other lenses? For lenses other than 50/1.8 and kit zooms, FujiFilm lenses are more attractively priced (than the XF 18-135/3.5-5.6). For instance, you'll be hard pressed to find a working Canon EF 35/1.4 for less than $600, while the XF 35/1.4 can be found used ~$400. However, there are Canon lenses for which there are no FujiFilm equivalents.

---

Although some may see better results when comparing a FujiFilm system vs Canon, that does not mean that the FujiFilm lens is necessarily better. To compare lenses, they have to be used on the same camera body.

This image demonstrates the effect that different camera bodies can have on image quality when using the same lens (EF 40/2.8 STM) with the same exposure settings. Canon tends to use smaller sensors and strong anti-aliasing filters, which is the likely cause of the blurriness in the sample image. It would have been unfair to blame the lens for an issue caused by the camera.

The perception that FujiFilm lenses are of higher quality than Canon lenses is partly based on using them with FujiFilm bodies, which don't have AA filters. Canon has removed, or reduced the strength of, the AA filter in some models. If planning to buy into the Canon system, consider waiting for models with reduced AA filtering to obtain image quality similar to that of cameras from other manufacturers.