* If it looks good, it IS good.
I'm from the same school, btw, but I don't like an excessive disparity in performance between my lenses. This because if I'm printing my shots as diptychs or as one unified project you (or at least I) can spot fairly easily differences in sharpness/rendering/colors if they're excessive.
So while I know that no wides is going to match, say, the 100 macro, I want at least for them to be close enough that one of the picture doesn't look like it has been taken with an Holga
In the meanwhile to have an idea of the performance of the AF model I tested my 24 MC (that is apparently slightly better than the AF version) directly against some of my other wides, with the same scene, light etc. The results are a bit discouraging: even at the lens best f/stop there is a fairly evident lack of fine detail compared to the others. There is probably a reason why I keep using it mostly on film and for "urban" shots.
At this point I narrowed down my choices to 3 lenses, and hopefully I'll be able to find them soon enough (I already placed offers in a couple of auctions):
- the 28/2 Sony FE, because apparently without distortion correction is more like a 25/26mm, and everyone is saying that is sharp
- the 24/2 Sony Zeiss, a costly proposition, but like I said 24mm is my 2nd most used lens so the investment may be worthy
- and (if there are no differences in terms of color rendering) the Canon 17-40. I've found a few raws with this lens on the A7r, and it looks a really good performer, with corner-to-corner sharpness at f/16
Thanks everyone for the suggestions!