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

1. I 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?

In my opinion the main difference is 1.4 vs 2 that means: less bokeh, less “tridimensionality” and overall less capability in low light. I found 23 f2 35 f2 16 2.8 close if not equal to their big brothers at all apertures from f4, sometimes from f2.8. If you don’t have to print your pictures at poster size you’ll never notice the difference. The only difference that counts is the aperture. This is my opinion. Anyway “fujicrons” are made for x-pro: form factor for ovf, quick and silent for the street photography. In an x-t or x-h they haven’t much sense.