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?

Well it looks as if I’m in favor of e.g. the f2 35mm exactly for the same reason you favor the f1.4. So to really answer the question I think you need to post pictures where you think the f2 produces flat pictures in contrast to the f1.4 version. Besides that I think it’s a very theoretical discussion.

Saying the above to me it sounds that you like more the look of the 1.4 primes (23mm, 35mm I assume). Would be interesting what you say about the ‘look’ of the pictures made with the 16mm 1.4 because foro me they are more close to the f2 lenses with regards to microcontrast and color reproduction.