Am I the only one that doesn’t like the Fujicron Trinity 23,35,50 f2 Lenses?

Sjak wrote:

When I was in the market for a 23, I checked a lot of comparisons between the 1.4 and 2.0, because of the significant difference in price (the 1.4 was about twice as expensive). I preferred the look of the 1.4, and the AF-speed did not seem vastly different between the 2.

So I went with the 23 1.4. Otherwise, the little voice in my head would keep reminding me of the nicer rendering and faster aperture, and I would still end up buying it, after already spending money on the 2.0. So it was cheaper to go right away with the 1.4

Not saying the 23 2.0 is a bad lens, because it is not.

There is more to a lens than the "technical" specs.  One difference between the f2 versions and the f1.4 versions is in the optics.  The f2 lens depend on S/W correction to clean up distortions. The f1.4 versions are optically corrected.  That is what I suspect we are seeing in the difference in the rendering of the image.  I have the 50 f2 and I believe that Fuji finally mastered the trade offs in that lens that they had not quite mastered in the two prior.  However, as good as the 50 f2 is - for rendering an image and producing an outstanding print - the 56 f1.2 is better.

The trade off in order to get the small size of the f2 lenses they had to make compromises on the optics which they tired to correct in S/W.  If size is a prime requirement - then something has got to give someplace else.

That is not to say that the 23/35 f2 lenses are not good lenses - they are.  However, I would not trade them for my f1.4 versions. For a normal lens - 35 on an APS-C and 50 on a 135 format my standard of rendering Is my Leica 50 Crone (f2).  Rendering from that lens simply produces glowing highlights and good shadow contrast.  The out of focus areas are soft and diffused.  The Fuji 35 f1.4, while not quite as good, is very close at 20% the price.