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.