Quote Originally Posted by Kayaker72 View Post
MTF charts.

Ultimately, nothing much surprising here. The 100-400 is actually not bad, ~5% transmittance off the RF 100-500 or EF 100-400 II. But, so was the EF 70-300 II. I would say the RF 16 f/2.8 is "good for what it is." Which is disappointing as I am seeing several references to people saying "it will end up in everyone's bag." It would end up in mine as a lightweight alternative to the EF 16-35 f/4 for my UWA shots, but those are usually landscapes and I do not see that MTF translating well. That said, it is sharp in the center, and has a minimum focusing distance of ~5 inches. So, could still be a creative lens. Likely aimed at vloggers, which the world should be thankful does not include me.
There's the old saying that there is no free lunch. 100-400 image quality does not appear will be competitive with similar L lenses and is a stop slow, but it is $649. 400mm at a useable f-stop in good light offers opportunities for people whose budgetary constraints doesn't allow them to spring for the "L".

I think the target market is crop camera users though. I don't think many people will put this on a full frame camera.

I have the 100-400 II and it is a spectacular lens, but highlights the importance of being reasonably close. Get close enough and have very good images or stay far away and have images not worth showing anyone.

Dave