The Canon EOS RP shipments begin on Wednesday

[Pape]

yep its easier put lot of big sucky lenses to get good picture quality than doing it with few small.
like sigma art serie

 

[neuroanatomist]

Granted, but for wider than 50mm... and for f/1.2, 85mm and wider... all other aspects of the attempted design being equal... it will...

Will it? So how does that explain the fact that the new Leica 35mm f/2 SL is 60% longer and double the weight of the Canon 35mm f/2 IS? I’m sure you’ll say ‘different attempted design’, of course. But the fact remains – shorter flange distance does not automatically mean smaller lenses.

 

[Pape]

sharpness demands raise all time ,more and more lens elements needed for new monstermegapixel cameras
even leica cant make it anymore with 7 lense

 

[3kramd5]

Granted, but for wider than 50mm... and for f/1.2, 85mm and wider... all other aspects of the attempted design being equal... it will...

What does “attempted design being equal” mean? What is the rationale behind your stated cutoffs?

A short flange 50mm lens may be the same size as a long flange 50mm lens, but all else being equal in design goals, a 49mm lens will automatically be smaller for short flange than long?

I’m not an optical engineer, but can think of really nothing that works that way.

 

[3kramd5]

Oops. Then again, I generally don’t refer to cylinder dimensions by height, length and width, but rather by height and diameter.

As you probably realized, the geometry is correct. If you double diameter (i.e., the “width and length” of a circle), area is quadrupled.

 

[Ozarker]

It also makes lenses unnecessarily HUGE. As the flange distance gets bigger, the lens gets exponentially larger.

Tell that to the RF 28-70 f/2L and the RF 50mm f/1.2L (vs EF 50mm f/1.2L). Photo from SLRLounge. I don't believe Canon chose a mirrorless design to take away "unnecessary" size. Seems pretty low on the checklist. I know you didn't say that, but facts is facts. I'd happily take the far larger RF 50... if I had an R body. Add the adapter for the EF 50 f/1.2L and it is still smaller. Comparing lenses of different designs and from different manufacturers is apples and oranges. Many of my old screw mount lenses are tiny and have wide apertures. They were made for FF, however, the lens design itself has more to do with size than flange distance (though flange distance must be taken into account.). At this point, Canon is clearly not worried about size and weight.

 

[flip314]

At this point, Canon is clearly not worried about size and weight.

Sigma has been getting praise lately for building lenses with uncompromised optical performance even if it means larger, heavier lenses. I think Canon may be taking something away from that trend.

For people who really want a small system, there's still m43