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

PS, I would add that words like "clinical" and "pop" seem to be very difficult to define, but I hope we can all agree that "pop" means something more than the simple fact that a given lens shoots at F1.8 or F1.4. "Pop" does not equal shallow depth of field. Similarly, "flat" or "clinical" does not simply refer to greater depth of field.

Right?

If that is correct, then in theory it should be possible to take the same photo using both the "slow" and the "fast" Fuji primes, same focal length, same composition, same aperture and shutter speed, same camera settings, same post processing (eg none/minimal), and we should be able to discern some difference between the "pop" picture and the "clinical" picture, or if you prefer, the "good rendering" vs the "bad rendering." Please feel to substitute your own terminology!

Right?

In summary, even if we can't precisely define what these terms mean, we can hopefully agree on what they don't mean. Having done that, we can remove that factor (depth of field) as a variable, and see for ourselves, side by side, if there is some other observable (if not actually measurable) difference.

I am a skeptic, but I wish to be open-minded and receptive to new information!

This would be a terrific learning opportunity for me, and perhaps for others, if anyone out there has both the "fast" and "slow" version and would be willing to post the results!

Thank you!