3kramd5 said:
I agree that the magnitues we are taking about here might be trivial. Would I take a 1” shorter lens if it came 30% bigger around? Probably not. If size is a major concern, buy a camera with a smaller format.
I’m just curious about the statements of fact being made, and wary of conclusions drawn from a small sample (the Sony designs).
On this, we are in agreement. If you look a page or two back, I posed it as a question as to the benefit of / or in search of the ideal FFD and throat diameter -- to anyone who has expertise in that, but particularly to those who say that Canon's EF is terrible or that Sony's FE botched it. It would be up to Canon to convince me that I really want to make a mount change, and doing so would require some real benefits. It doesn't have to be exclusively size, but sure,
total size, as a ratio on lenses that I feel are on the big and heavy end, does matter.
I'm not sure that either is exactly right. What I would absolutely not look forward to is replacing all of my EF lenses with lenses like Sony FE's -- generally a little bigger, no mechanical ring focus, and way more expensive.
I realize that the sample size of 1 is not a good one. However, the maximum sample size we're going to realistically be looking at is... three
So it's a third of the potential full frame mirrorless mounts. I discount Leica because it's just too specialty, and targets a market that is unlikely to ever be mainstream.
Going to FACTS, Sigma recently said this in an interview:
If you had designed the recently-announced E-mount primes from the ground up for Sony’s full-frame cameras, would they be smaller?
The wide-angle lenses would be, yes. We just announced E-mount versions of the 14mm, 20mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and 135mm. Probably, the 14mm, 20mm and 24mm lenses could have been smaller [if they were designed for Sony full-frame from the beginning]. But any lens longer than 35mm, they’d be about the same size. Our 35mm F1.4, for example, is about the same size as the Sony 35mm F1.4. But for wider lenses, because of the short flange-back distance of the E-mount, we could make them smaller.
This is one of the reasons we decided on our approach with these lenses. Because the size difference would have been minimal with most of the focal lengths, we focused on making the performance better and smoother, using our existing optical designs.
https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/2150589362/sigma-interview-this-is-just-the-beginning
So my issue is that the biggest 14mm, 20mm, 24mm and 35mm primes don't have a size issue. I'm certainly not going to buy a whole line of new lenses that 30% more just for those types of sizes. It's the bigger lenses, particularly 2.8 trinity zooms, that would be most interesting.