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

Truman Prevatt wrote:

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.

Looking at the Photozone testing of the 23mm versions I'm not sure where you are getting your information on distortions.  Photozone finds that both 1.4 and 2.0 versions of the lens have very low distortion.

Now, vignetting and rendering is an entirely different matter.  The 23mm f/2 suffers from truly excessive vignetting wide open.  And the out of focus rendering of the f/2 is not nearly so nice as the 1.4.

The 35mm versions are more in line with your comment.  The 1.4 version seems to be fully optically corrected in Photozone tests whereas the f/2 has significant barrel distortion and relies on auto-correction.