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

syrcular wrote:

In search of getting weather resistant versions of my f1.4 primes, I rented this set to use for the week. And I’m having such trouble liking them. At first I thought it might be that I like the f1.4 aperture and depth of field better, but I remember often times stopping down to f2 on my faster primes, and still like the look. And in fact I just recently bought a X100F, and love the focal length and aperture look of that camera lens combo, which happens to be f2.

So why do I struggle with these beloved lenses? There’s something about them that looks a bit flat to me. I also find that although I love how silent they are, and how fast they focus in the daytime or in well lit situations; they are really slow in low light, from my experience.

I know a bunch of people love these lenses, and so I’m just curious if there are others that struggle with these particular lenses from an image aesthetic, like myself?

I got the 23 and 35/1.4s because that's what was available when I started on Fuji. Nothing I've seen or read makes me keen to sidegrade.

As a prime user, my disappointment has been that many of the recent Fuji offers haven't given me any opportunities to expand my range -- Fuji has put their recent effort mainly into lenses (or the larger format) that don't serve my needs or stoke my desires.

• The 23 and 35/2 are obviously redundant for me, and the 50/2 isn't different enough from the 35 & 56/1.2 or 60/2.4 -- at least I don't see a case for it, for me, yet.
• I also can't justify the 80/2.8 (which looks fabulous) over the 60 with or without tubes (I rarely need more than 0.5 mag anyway, and suspect this is mainly a 'checklist' feature like WR rather than a real need for *most* photographers). And the 80/2.8 is close to the 90/2 for nonmacro --- if they'd gone with the 120/2.8 that would have been different, for me, for increased reach and an intermediate stabilized tele. I love the 90/2, but IS at that angle of view would be a plus.
• The 200/2 will sadly be too big and dear for me, and longer than I'm likely to use much, anyway. I want a 135/2-ish LM OIS, but there is no such thing in sight. I may finally give in and get the optically excellent but unstabilized, manual focus Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 135/2 -- it will be harder to use than an AF lens with IS, but much more affordable and totable than comparable Fuji options -- for example, it is cheaper (about ⅓ the price), smaller (880 vs 995 grams, although 77mm filter thread), and faster than the Fuji 50-140/2.8 (and the Samyang Is as good or *better* in sharpness, bokeh, CA, distortion, vignetting and flare, *at 135mm*). Again, the canceled 120/2.8 might have tempted me.
• The 8-16 may tempt me, but *I* would have preferred that Fuji offer *one* prime wider than 14mm rather than a *second* ultrawide zoom ('red badge' or not). I'll stay with the very good, small, fast, and affordable Samyang 12/2 and the admittedly odd and limited Samyang 8/2.8 fisheye. If the new zoom is very well corrected and otherwise optically excellent, I'll reconsider. A fully corrected rectilear prime, 8-11 mm and f/2 to f/4 would be tempting. I don't care about OIS, WR or LM for such a lens, but do include the aperture ring.
• Too bad the 33/1 may never appear. That might have displaced my 35/1.4.

But that's just me.

Well, it is saving me money. I know I'm a niche (possibly of one) user, but Fuji is motivating me to give my money to a third party. Fuji has to make choices, and so do I.

Still, a happy Fuji user.