Sorry to stink up a whole page or two of worthless debate. Could’ve summed it up easily with this.
Can a RF lens which is longer at full extension than an EF be shorter when actually mounted to camera? Yes.
Back Flange Distance on EF is 44mm.
Back Flange Distance on RF is 20mm.
The difference being 24mm which is 1mm short of an inch.
24-70 max length is 152mm and 28-70 max length is 168mm.
Take away 24mm of flange distance from 168mm is 144mm. Effectively the 28-70 when mounted is about 8mm shorter than the 24-70.
Right where the real spec I believed it would be, but from memory and real world comparison it looked about a half inch to me when considering grip design and balance. Not the MONSTER some make it out to be, in my opinion, and an amazing design to get twice the light in a similar size and weight camera and lens combo.
When retraced the 28-70 is 3mm longer than the 24-70. Right where the picture comparing the RP w/28-70 vs 5D w 24-70 appears to show. Pretty much the same length. With the shorter travel extension of the 28-70 at 22mm vs 31mm is a difference of 9mm and compensate for the 3mm difference retraced, leaves us with the 28-70 shorter by 6-7mm. Nearly the same spec above.
I don’t know why there’s this resistance to the idea that the RF mount is making new possibilities in lens design and overall shooting experience, that we’re being fooled by creative marketing or something.
Everything I’ve argued can be referenced here.
Learn about Canon's RF lenses and the RF mount introduced with their first line of full frame mirrorless camera, the EOS R.
www.the-digital-picture.com