Even with the advantage of a shorter flange distance, the RF 100-300/2.8 is heavier and longer than the EF 300/2.8 II. That was my point, and a hypothetical EF 100-300/2.8 is irrelevant to it. I’d agree that an RF 200-500/4 could be lighter than an EF 200-500/4, but that’s also irrelevant.If there was an EF 100-300/2.8 it would be much more complex and heavier than the RF 100-300/2.8. The fact that the sensor is closer to the back side of the lens allows better optics with less glass.
How does the shorter flange distance support the idea that an RF 200-500/4 will be lighter and/or shorter than the EF 500/4 II, given that the RF 100-300/2.8 is neither compared to the EF 300/2.8 II?
Upvote
0