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

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?

Jpeg or raw?  What film simulations?  What camera sharpening, tone curve?  What subjects and distances?  What apertures?  What ISO?  There is a lot that could make you unhappy apart from the lenses themselves.  I quite like my 35mm f/2.  Perhaps post some images that illustrate your concern.

When I was in the market for a 23, I checked a lot of comparisons between the 1.4 and 2.0, because of the significant difference in price (the 1.4 was about twice as expensive). I preferred the look of the 1.4, and the AF-speed did not seem vastly different between the 2.

So I went with the 23 1.4. Otherwise, the little voice in my head would keep reminding me of the nicer rendering and faster aperture, and I would still end up buying it, after already spending money on the 2.0. So it was cheaper to go right away with the 1.4 

Not saying the 23 2.0 is a bad lens, because it is not.

I don't have lots of experience with the 35/2, but I did purchase the 23/2 after I've sold my 23/1.4. I returned it two weeks later and bought the 23/1.4 again...

I also have the 35/1.4 and I love it.

Sjak wrote:

When I was in the market for a 23, I checked a lot of comparisons between the 1.4 and 2.0, because of the significant difference in price (the 1.4 was about twice as expensive). I preferred the look of the 1.4, and the AF-speed did not seem vastly different between the 2.

So I went with the 23 1.4. Otherwise, the little voice in my head would keep reminding me of the nicer rendering and faster aperture, and I would still end up buying it, after already spending money on the 2.0. So it was cheaper to go right away with the 1.4

Not saying the 23 2.0 is a bad lens, because it is not.

What I know is, I can buy the 23/2 but my head will always think about the 23/1.4. I don't want my head to think a lot (about this anyway).

zurih wrote:

Sjak wrote:

So I went with the 23 1.4. Otherwise, the little voice in my head would keep reminding me of the nicer rendering and faster aperture, and I would still end up buying it, after already spending money on the 2.0. So it was cheaper to go right away with the 1.4

What I know is, I can buy the 23/2 but my head will always think about the 23/1.4. I don't want my head to think a lot (about this anyway).

Me neither, but I perfectly understand if for others, the outcome of the equation is different.

For me, main purpose of a 23mm is gathering some memories of my ageing parents, so mostly indoors shots, dinner-table portraits etc.

Sjak wrote:

zurih wrote:

Sjak wrote:

So I went with the 23 1.4. Otherwise, the little voice in my head would keep reminding me of the nicer rendering and faster aperture, and I would still end up buying it, after already spending money on the 2.0. So it was cheaper to go right away with the 1.4

What I know is, I can buy the 23/2 but my head will always think about the 23/1.4. I don't want my head to think a lot (about this anyway).

Me neither, but I perfectly understand if for others, the outcome of the equation is different.

For me, main purpose of a 23mm is gathering some memories of my ageing parents, so mostly indoors shots, dinner-table portraits etc.

About the same for me - I'm taking photos of my growing kids, mainly indoors. The f1.4 is a saver.

The Fuji from trinity IMO has a sterile look to it. While the 1.4's have that uniqueness to them.

I had both the 35 f2 and 1.4 back when shooting the x-t10, and kept the 1.4 simply because of the price. I currently have a 35 2 sitting on back order since it came with the X-T1.. part of me wants to sell it right away to fund the 1.4, but the other half wants to keep it for the WR...

From reading everyone's opinion between the two on the forums, which ever the person gets to use first seems to be the one they stick with.

Sjak wrote:

When I was in the market for a 23, I checked a lot of comparisons between the 1.4 and 2.0, because of the significant difference in price (the 1.4 was about twice as expensive). I preferred the look of the 1.4, and the AF-speed did not seem vastly different between the 2.

So I went with the 23 1.4. Otherwise, the little voice in my head would keep reminding me of the nicer rendering and faster aperture, and I would still end up buying it, after already spending money on the 2.0. So it was cheaper to go right away with the 1.4

Not saying the 23 2.0 is a bad lens, because it is not.

There is more to a lens than the "technical" specs.  One difference between the f2 versions and the f1.4 versions is in the optics.  The f2 lens depend on S/W correction to clean up distortions. The f1.4 versions are optically corrected.  That is what I suspect we are seeing in the difference in the rendering of the image.  I have the 50 f2 and I believe that Fuji finally mastered the trade offs in that lens that they had not quite mastered in the two prior.  However, as good as the 50 f2 is - for rendering an image and producing an outstanding print - the 56 f1.2 is better.

The trade off in order to get the small size of the f2 lenses they had to make compromises on the optics which they tired to correct in S/W.  If size is a prime requirement - then something has got to give someplace else.

That is not to say that the 23/35 f2 lenses are not good lenses - they are.  However, I would not trade them for my f1.4 versions. For a normal lens - 35 on an APS-C and 50 on a 135 format my standard of rendering Is my Leica 50 Crone (f2).  Rendering from that lens simply produces glowing highlights and good shadow contrast.  The out of focus areas are soft and diffused.  The Fuji 35 f1.4, while not quite as good, is very close at 20% the price.

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Sjak wrote:

When I was in the market for a 23, I checked a lot of comparisons between the 1.4 and 2.0, because of the significant difference in price (the 1.4 was about twice as expensive). I preferred the look of the 1.4, and the AF-speed did not seem vastly different between the 2.

So I went with the 23 1.4. Otherwise, the little voice in my head would keep reminding me of the nicer rendering and faster aperture, and I would still end up buying it, after already spending money on the 2.0. So it was cheaper to go right away with the 1.4

Not saying the 23 2.0 is a bad lens, because it is not.

There is more to a lens than the "technical" specs. One difference between the f2 versions and the f1.4 versions is in the optics. The f2 lens depend on S/W correction to clean up distortions. The f1.4 versions are optically corrected.

Looking at the Photozone testing of the 23mm versions I'm not sure where you are getting your information on distortions.  Photozone finds that both 1.4 and 2.0 versions of the lens have very low distortion.

Now, vignetting and rendering is an entirely different matter.  The 23mm f/2 suffers from truly excessive vignetting wide open.  And the out of focus rendering of the f/2 is not nearly so nice as the 1.4.

The 35mm versions are more in line with your comment.  The 1.4 version seems to be fully optically corrected in Photozone tests whereas the f/2 has significant barrel distortion and relies on auto-correction.

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?

I got the 23 and 35/1.4s because that's what was available when I started on Fuji. Nothing I've seen or read makes me keen to sidegrade.

As a prime user, my disappointment has been that many of the recent Fuji offers haven't given me any opportunities to expand my range -- Fuji has put their recent effort mainly into lenses (or the larger format) that don't serve my needs or stoke my desires.

• The 23 and 35/2 are obviously redundant for me, and the 50/2 isn't different enough from the 35 & 56/1.2 or 60/2.4 -- at least I don't see a case for it, for me, yet.
• I also can't justify the 80/2.8 (which looks fabulous) over the 60 with or without tubes (I rarely need more than 0.5 mag anyway, and suspect this is mainly a 'checklist' feature like WR rather than a real need for *most* photographers). And the 80/2.8 is close to the 90/2 for nonmacro --- if they'd gone with the 120/2.8 that would have been different, for me, for increased reach and an intermediate stabilized tele. I love the 90/2, but IS at that angle of view would be a plus.
• The 200/2 will sadly be too big and dear for me, and longer than I'm likely to use much, anyway. I want a 135/2-ish LM OIS, but there is no such thing in sight. I may finally give in and get the optically excellent but unstabilized, manual focus Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 135/2 -- it will be harder to use than an AF lens with IS, but much more affordable and totable than comparable Fuji options -- for example, it is cheaper (about ⅓ the price), smaller (880 vs 995 grams, although 77mm filter thread), and faster than the Fuji 50-140/2.8 (and the Samyang Is as good or *better* in sharpness, bokeh, CA, distortion, vignetting and flare, *at 135mm*). Again, the canceled 120/2.8 might have tempted me.
• The 8-16 may tempt me, but *I* would have preferred that Fuji offer *one* prime wider than 14mm rather than a *second* ultrawide zoom ('red badge' or not). I'll stay with the very good, small, fast, and affordable Samyang 12/2 and the admittedly odd and limited Samyang 8/2.8 fisheye. If the new zoom is very well corrected and otherwise optically excellent, I'll reconsider. A fully corrected rectilear prime, 8-11 mm and f/2 to f/4 would be tempting. I don't care about OIS, WR or LM for such a lens, but do include the aperture ring.
• Too bad the 33/1 may never appear. That might have displaced my 35/1.4.

But that's just me.

Well, it is saving me money. I know I'm a niche (possibly of one) user, but Fuji is motivating me to give my money to a third party. Fuji has to make choices, and so do I.

Still, a happy Fuji user.

???

I assume that you are jesting.  I was not saying anything about f/2 vs. f/1.4 lenses.  I was suggesting that the OP was unhappy with images and that there could be many reasons beyond the lenses.

If you want to compare f2 and f1.4, try Lenstip.

ZedDoctor wrote:

The Fuji from trinity IMO has a sterile look to it. While the 1.4's have that uniqueness to them.

Could you elaborate what you mean by the f/2 primes having a sterile look?

Do the images they produce appear to lack macro contrast?  too sharp?  color rendering appears to be off?  Is this after post processing to taste?

Or are you referring to the physical appearance and handling of the f/2 primes?

Marcos Villaroman wrote:

ZedDoctor wrote:

The Fuji from trinity IMO has a sterile look to it. While the 1.4's have that uniqueness to them.

Could you elaborate what you mean by the f/2 primes having a sterile look?

Sure.

Do the images they produce appear to lack macro contrast? too sharp? color rendering appears to be off? Is this after post processing to taste?

This is SOOC, but from my experience all 3 produced the same traits as each other, except for the focal length of course.

Or are you referring to the physical appearance and handling of the f/2 primes?

Handling and appearance is fine.

I chose the 35F2 over the F1.4 version because:

a) It's cheaper.

b) It has quieter and faster AF.

c) The F1.4 version was not that sharp wide open so I was likely to step it down anyway and at comparable apertures the F2 version was sharper.

I'm afraid the choice when it comes to the 23mm twins is harder as the F1.4 has reasonable, quiet AF speed and the F2 version is not appreciably sharper at comparable apertures. Fortunately for me, I never warmed up to the 35mm eq. FoV.

OK.  Understood.  I'm not defending anything.  I bought the 35mm f/2 in part because it is a nice size to go with my X-E2.  I do like my 23mm f/1.4.  I'd still like to see examples of "flat" images with the f2 lenses, as I don't have the same impression.  I agree with you that you can't go too far wrong whatever prime lenses you choose.