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

Based on admittedly limited and unscientific observation in Sony E land, and now in Fuji X land, I have come to associate the use of words like "flat" and "clinical" with very good and relatively affordable lenses, and the use of words like "pop" and "character" with very good and relatively expensive lenses.  

I have personally owned the 35mm and 50mm F2's for a short time now, and I have been delighted with the images, and with the compact size, and the look and feel of the lenses. To me, they are the very embodiment of the mirrorless ethos: excellent results, small package.

Personally, I vary rarely shoot at F1.4, and I have a $50 Minolta Rokkor-X 50mm for when I do.

As a Sony E shooter, I was a big fan of the Sigma 19mm, 30mm and 60mm F2.8 primes - excellent lenses at bargain basement prices.

I read similar claims that their output was somehow "clinical," claims usually made by someone who owned the @$1100 Sony Zeiss 24mm F1.8. Which, we were assured, had a certain "pop."

Some even said "Zeiss pop," although the degree of Zeiss DNA actually present in that lens is, I think, debatable.

I am not questioning the optical goodness of the Sony Zeiss 24mm F1.8, or of the Fuji F1.4 primes.  But for what I shoot, and for my gear budget, the price/performance ratio offered by the Fujicron primes is very compelling indeed.

I have no plans to acquire the 23mm F2.  That focal length is not of great interest to me.  But I would be very happy if Fuji's rumored 18mm F2 version II turns out to be a Fujicron!

It is fantastic I think that Fuji has now made both "fast" and "slow" primes available, which can only add to Fuji's appeal for a variety of shooting styles and budgets.