$499 for the 100-400!

Mike Engles wrote:

I look at my pictures on the same monitor as anyone else's pictures My monitor is a seven year old EIZO SX2462W and 1920 x1200, calibrated using a X-rite i1 and their software. I have no problems seeing the images on the DPreview samples galleries

My pictures look softish too me, but the OP's looked very harsh as do many others submitted on these forums. As far as I know, monitors cannot be sharpened and are generally calibrated with 100% contrast.

You I presume have also seen the images and also can make a judgement.

First, it appears that you and I use the same lens, the EF 100-400 MkII, sometimes with and sometimes without the 1.4x MKIII extender. That gives us a full stop advantage for both ISO and dof over Alastair's RF 100-400. However, in looking at Alastair's photos, it seems to me that the sharpness and detail is better than in my EF glass. So, yes, my photos and yours look a bit softer, but I don't see that sharpness and detail as harshness, but as an attribute, especially when coupled with the light weight, that makes me want to acquire that lens. I do think that some of these photos, as well as many of my own, could benefit from more shallow depth of field, but as in everything else in photography, that is one of the compromises we have to deal with. Frankly, I would think that the only way to compare the image quality of any two images would be as prints, under the same lighting, and from the same optimal distance. And even then, I'm not going to see things the same as you.  And that's okay.