Here's a quick comparison of lens sizes for the four new RF lenses and their EF equivalents (where such exist).
The tabular data shown below compare all four new RF lenses with EF equivalents. The right-most column shows the volume of a cylinder defined by lens height and diameter (cc, cm^3).
The RF 35/1.8 Macro is in-between the EF-S 35/2.8 Macro and EF 35/2 IS, which makes perfect sense. Similarly, the RF 24-105/4L IS is virtually the same size as the EF 24-105/4L IS, and slightly smaller than the Mk II. Seems reasonable. OTOH, Canon has gone "all Milvus" with the new L-series lenses (which should come as no surprise, except maybe for those who think that optics are made magically smaller by a shorter camera register).
The visual comparisons for RF 50mm f/1.2 L and RF 28-70/2 L are a little awkward, as only oblique views have been released for the RF versions (as opposed to profile views), but the relative size differences are obvious.
Here's a quick comparison of lens sizes for the four new RF lenses and their EF equivalents (where such exist).
The tabular data shown below compare all four new RF lenses with EF equivalents. The right-most column shows the volume of a cylinder defined by lens height and diameter (cc, cm^3).
The RF 35/1.8 Macro is in-between the EF-S 35/2.8 Macro and EF 35/2 IS, which makes perfect sense. Similarly, the RF 24-105/4L IS is virtually the same size as the EF 24-105/4L IS, and slightly smaller than the Mk II. Seems reasonable. OTOH, Canon has gone "all Milvus" with the new L-series lenses (which should come as no surprise, except maybe for those who think that optics are made magically smaller by a shorter camera register).
The visual comparisons for 50mm f/1.2 L and 24-70/2 L are a little awkward, as only oblique views have been released for the RF versions (as opposed to profile views), but the relative size differences are obvious.
Sep 05, 2018 at 08:06 AM
Previous versions of jcolwell's message #14585063 « Canon RF vs. EF lenses: Lens Size, 50mm L and 28-70mm L »
