I’m still waiting for any actual evidence of this. Not things you may have heard. Facts. So far, the facts in evidence are:
- The patent designs for RF UWA zooms (15-35, 16-35, 17-35, including some with variable aperture) are all larger than the EF 17-40
- The RF24-105 is essentially identical to the EF version
- The RF 35/1.8 is larger than the EF 35/2
- The RF 50/1.2 is bigger than the EF 50/1.2
- The RF 85/1.2 is bigger than the EF 85/1.2
You may have heard that the earth is flat. Not everything you hear is correct.
I was a little bit confused about that statement and checked the data:
RF variant: diameter 74.4 x 62.8mm, approx. 305g
EF variant: diameter 77.9 x 62.6mm, 335g
(from usa.canon.com)
So they have a very similar weight and size but the EF is 1.8 + has better max. reprod. ratio.
On the camera the smaller flange distance of the RF system makes the RF variant ~20 mm shorter
when it comes to overall dimensions of the body-lens combo. Not dramatic but sometimes very
helpful.
While the RF 50/80 mm variants are bigger and heavier they play in another league if it comes to
contrast and resolution so this comparison is a little bit of chicken egg and ostrich egg
But I see that the advantages of the RF lead to larger ultra high quality lenses primarily but
there is no vast amount of high quality lenses with compact footprint.
Maybe it will be the 2nd large phase of introducing the RF system:
RF bodies -------------------------------High end RF bodies ---------------------------------------------------------------------
RF high end lenses ----------------------------------------------- RF compact standard series (2.8 20 / 1.8 85 / 2.8 200)