$499 for the 100-400!

danferrin wrote:

Mike Engles wrote:

I really doubt that the RF version of the lens has better sharpness than the EF version. If it did and if our lenses are soft, the excessive sharpening in my opinion, would not be needed. That is why I always ask to see what it looks like if a SOOC jpeg was posted at full size.That could be a basis for comparison.

How can you assess the initial sharpness of the Rf version, using the finished image as comparison and compare it with the EF lens.We have no idea of any of the processing steps that occurred

If I recall correctly, Alastair shoots jpeg. These appear to me to be resized and/or cropped jpegs. They are not excessively cropped in post. I spent years working pre-press for a catalog company, doing product photography, scanning, retouching and color correction. If there was excessive sharpening, I would see artifacts and halos which I don't see in any of these images. What I see is detail.

Thanks Dan. One small correction: I shoot RAW almost all the time, including for these shots. The main exception is when I shoot many thousands of shots for track meets or road races (but even for them I'm considering trying RAW next time, just to see how much slower it would be to sort and process them). As for the question of whether the RF 100-400 has better sharpness than the older EF 100-400 lenses (not versions of the same lens, but sharing the focal range), I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised. The RF 100-400, as all its owners say, punches well above its weight.

I've stopped responding to Mike, because he seems just like a grumpy old man sitting on his porch waving his stick at 'kids today' (kids like 62 year old me), and for some reason has hijacked a thread about the great deal currently available for the 100-400. We get it, he doesn't like the way my pictures look, and tries to justify that with twaddle about how RAW files look 'unprocessed'. I don't like the way his look. So why keep banging on about it?