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

RangerPhotog wrote:

I am relatively new to the Fuji world and only have the 16/2.8, 23/2 & 50/2 for my XPro3 and i am content with them. I do have Nikon equipment and have and used various so-called "legendary" Nikkor 1.4 primes and 2.8 zooms for many years. The smaller 2 and 2.8 Fuji primes appeal to me because of a single reason and that is "size". I have never gotten wrapped up in things like "micro contrast" and "tridimensionality" written about in this thread. I have never taken the time or have the interest to compare two lenses side-by-side. I just slap on a lens appropriate for the shot or shooting situation at hand. The end result of my images are 20"x30" prints hung in a gallery to be displayed and potentially bought. These images come from 12mp to 36mp files (and everything in-between. I have never been asked what camera or lens was used to take the image. The way I see it....if the image success is based on the "micro contrast" or "tridimensionality" of a given lens, then the image is weak to begin with or simply boring.

I may get faster primes once revamped ones do come out but there is no rush. I'm content with what I have and if I cannot produce compelling images with these lenses, then I am at fault. The equipment is certainly not a fault.

I agree. None will ask you what lens you use when you sell something to a magazine, if the image is ok. They are pro lens as 1.4. In worldwide contests won 16 1.4 but also x100, 23 f2 and cameras with 10mpx. So the quality is just a pixel peeper question, also if the aperture is important for the kind of work you want to do. For night shots for example the image with a 35 1.4 or a 56 1.2 will have different for the mood they can give respect to an image with f2. For example the works of Joshua Jackson were shot with these lens. Then I think that the best lens is the lens you use, that you can carry with you and the feeling you have with it.