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

jjz2 wrote:

Miguel-C wrote:

Sufstreet wrote:

Miguel-C wrote:

Sufstreet wrote:

Yes off course. The 1.4 is smoother and fades nicer.

This has been demonstrated to be false. If you pick the 35mm f2 and the 35mm f1.4 at f2 the bokeh roll off will be identical.

Neither are super smooth in busy backgrounds.

I tried them both and I don't agree.

Theres plenty of side by side comparisons on YouTube, are they all wrong?

Not sure how this would be, but maybe so... but the MTF curves are quite different, different central sharpness to out-of-focus edges on a tighter portrait. The 35 f2 if I recall, has a more even sharpness across the frame, whereas the 35 1.4 has more microcontrast in the center then dives into smoother, not so sharp edges, esp at the first few stops.

I had the 35 f2, the 35 1.4, and the 35 1.2 7 artisans all at the same time. I'm not a pixel peeper or know how to do scientific tests, but to me, they all had a diff "look" to them. I am kind of picky about color/bokeh though. Sure, it's subtle, as they are all the same focal length after all, but it was there.

I do agree neither have "Great" bokeh, but pretty good... The 56 1.2 is better than both, IMO.

My comment was simply in relation to the bokeh and background rendering. I understand the F2 lens is a bit more contrasty.

DoF differences aside, same rendering, same bokeh balls, same shapes, same everything.

Sufstreet wrote:

There's millions of videos on YouTube explaining things. It does not mean they are right.

You can't really refute image comparisons. What makes these comments worse is that perpetuates this myth that the 35mm F1.4 is a superlative lens, and whenever someone tries to describe why they use words such as "magic" "character" "feelings". I'm quite the one for scientific results, so abstract notions are meaningless to me.