[Brightcolours]

It's the kind of questionable AF consistency usually associated (in the Internet-speak at least) with the Sigma lenses. I have to admit that I abuse my 24 pretty badly - like I do with all fast primes - by employing them in the very difficult lighting conditions. Still, the Tamrons 45mm and 85mm are more consistent than the Sigma 14mm and Canon 24mm in my opinion, although these two are not outright bad - they just go off the deep end sometimes, rather unpredictably.

Still it was mighty fun shooting the celebrations of the Buddhist New Year last night with 2 cameras and these 4 primes. I might have looked like a prime-snob though.

Impossible!
There is no such things as a prime snob, except when shooting with fast Leica primes

Yeah, and someone as... spirited would probably never be caught alive using an APS-C camera, it'd be a sacrilege.

Phew! Wiping brow ... That is not me in that case, even worse than APS-C that I carry around besides FF: MFT!

Kind regards, WIm

---

Based on what I can see under lab conditions, it is a valid sample.

Brace for an "interesting" rating ...

Just to get back to this, after an, IMO, interesting realization:
When you look at the comparison of jpegs vs RAWs, it is obvious that the jpegs are slightly cropped, actually.

I am now wondering whether the sensor sees more than 24 mm at the wide end or not, and if so, whether the jpegs actually show an AoV that is conform what you would expect for 24 mm on FF or not.
Basically, the worst of the dark corners are actually cropped away with jpegs, and the last little remainder is corrected away, with corrections on.

Kind regards, Wim

24mm is 24mm.... Uncorrected one would call it "fisheye", and will have a wider FOV than corrected. If you correct barrel distortion, you crop "the corners" and end up with 24mm corrected FOV.