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

michaeladawson wrote:

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.

I haven't looked at photozone since the 23 f2 has been up.  I based a lot on the 35 f2 - which has significant distortion uncorrected.  Geometric optics tells you the closer the lens diameter is to the aperture size - the more distortion one will have.  I expect they learn a lesson from the 35 which probably is the reason the lens diameter for the 35 and 23 are the same - although the max aperture size of the 23 is only 65% of that of the 35.  If they had maintained the max lens size to aperture of the 35 I expect we would have seen the same distortion.  The 50 does show a little uncorrected distortion but nowhere near the 35.

However, distortion not withstanding I still do not like the rendering I have seen from either  the 23 or 35 f2 so I don't have either.  I find the rendering on the 50 f2 a bit more to my liking but would not use it on a portrait compared to the 56 f1.2 which has wonderful rendering.

I, however, don't personally value WR as a big deal.  It is basically a sales gimmick.  If it makes people feel all warm and fuzzy and they value it - more power to them.  Insurance is cheap and if I smoke a lens from accidental exposure to rain - then I must replace it.  I don't want to give up image rendering - particularly in a print for a few rubber seals especially since in 47 years the only time I have had a camera or lens damaged from water was when I slipped and fell in a deep stream and smashed the camera with my head following and lens on a boulder going down and them submerged the smashed camera for about 30 seconds as I got my bearing.

Then there was the time I left my camera (with lens attached ) on top of the car and drove off and seeing the camera fly off in my rear view mirror and bounce along a gravel road.  All equipment replace by my personal articles policy.