Seeing that two of them now have IS, where the EF versions did not, I would expect them to be slightly larger and heavier - especially if the trend continues of creating a lens that is sharper and performs better than the EF versions.They are still a bit top big in combinatiën with the mirroroess body imo ...
They also have a few more electronic tricks up their sleeves with the hardware changes to allow stored data, better focusing, and faster data communication. I’m not sure how much all that affects design, but with the addition of the control rings, that should have an impact.
And the 70-200? At least when retracted and for some of the working range, it’s certainly much smaller than the EF version.
So I’m confused on how they’re too big in combination with mirrorless? Have you used any of them yet?
Also not forgetting the 24mm shorter back flange will bring the lenses closer to the back of the camera and a body that’s a few hundred grams lighter, the girth of the lens may be the only real noticeable characteristic. The grip on my RP, as tiny as the camera is, still feels great vs my Mark IV. We’ll see.
If Canon achieves all of that on their 24-70 and is close to Sony’s physical specs on their G master, it’s a win for Canon. As it sits, Sony’s is 100g heavier and .9” longer than Canon’s EF and doesn’t have all those great additions the RF version will have.