Size does matter - even for mirrorless

Bruce Trail Hiker · Apr 22, 2025

Remember when the mirrorless revolution started, everyone is saying camera and lenses will be smaller than the DSLR equivalent.

Guess what, they are getting bigger and heavier, especially the fast zoom. Examples are:

Canon RF 28-70mm f2.0, Sigma 28-105mm f2.8, Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8, Sony FE 28-70mm f2.0, Canon 24-105mm f2.8 and now Sony FE 50-150mm f2.0. These are all big and heavy. Of all these, I think the Canon RF 24-105mm f2.8 comes close to being a "one" lens only for event shooting. The rest would require you (I would) to carry an additional wider than 24mm lens. However the f2.0 lenses have their fans. The reason for their existence is their versatility. Maybe these manufacturers realise they can't compete with the newcomers of prime lenses (in price). So they concentrate on high value (money) zoom lenses. What do you think?

Leigh A · Apr 22, 2025

Faster lenses require larger/ heavier glass lens elements and structure suitable to support them. Until, and if ever, a significantly lighter, affordable lens material capable of the optical quality of glass emerges, changes are unlikely.

BobKnDP · Apr 22, 2025

I'm not an optical designer, although I pretended to do some of that about 30 years ago.

A mirrorless camera has a short flange distance compared to a SLR. That means that a wide-angle lens ("inverse telephoto") can be more compact for a mirrorless camera, and use less glass.

Perhaps the applicability isn't as broad as hoped.

Will T · Apr 22, 2025

Yes it does matter and bigger is better for camera bodies (not more weight though) if you can’t get a good grip on your camera what good is it when you drop and smash your gear???

SamKnopf · Apr 23, 2025

Improvements in sensor technology mean that lightweight full frame options are also available.

I use my camera for travel, and I find that I can take excellent photos in dark museums at 12,800 with no noise to speak of. I therefore happily use Canon's slowest zooms on my R8. The total weight with the 24-105 STM or 15-30 STM is under 2 pounds.

Around 15 years ago, I used a 5D with a 24-105 f/4. I have cut the weight in half, while quality has improved. So I'm not complaining.

There are no doubt some pros who need the utmost in performance, who will opt for f/2.8 zooms or even f/2, and carry the burden of the extra weight as part of their job. It's useful to have that option available when it is really needed, but as others have mentioned, the laws of physics apply

Otaraka · Apr 23, 2025

Bruce Trail Hiker said:
Remember when the mirrorless revolution started, everyone is saying camera and lenses will be smaller than the DSLR equivalent.

Guess what, they are getting bigger and heavier, especially the fast zoom. Examples are:

Canon RF 28-70mm f2.0, Sigma 28-105mm f2.8, Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8, Sony FE 28-70mm f2.0, Canon 24-105mm f2.8 and now Sony FE 50-150mm f2.0. These are all big and heavy. Of all these, I think the Canon RF 24-105mm f2.8 comes close to being a "one" lens only for event shooting. The rest would require you (I would) to carry an additional wider than 24mm lens. However the f2.0 lenses have their fans. The reason for their existence is their versatility. Maybe these manufacturers realise they can't compete with the newcomers of prime lenses (in price). So they concentrate on high value (money) zoom lenses. What do you think?

The mirrorless revolution in that regard is the phone, which is pretty much impossible to beat on size and portability, and so far, computational processing.

ILC cant compete with that which is why the focus is on fast lenses and large sensors.

Zeee · Apr 23, 2025

BobKnDP said:
I'm not an optical designer, although I pretended to do some of that about 30 years ago.

A mirrorless camera has a short flange distance compared to a SLR. That means that a wide-angle lens ("inverse telephoto") can be more compact for a mirrorless camera, and use less glass.

This also reduces aberrations, etc.

BobKnDP said:
Perhaps the applicability isn't as broad as hoped.

Karl_Guttag · Apr 23, 2025

Bruce Trail Hiker said:
Remember when the mirrorless revolution started, everyone is saying camera and lenses will be smaller than the DSLR equivalent.

Guess what, they are getting bigger and heavier, especially the fast zoom. Examples are:

Canon RF 28-70mm f2.0, Sigma 28-105mm f2.8, Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8, Sony FE 28-70mm f2.0, Canon 24-105mm f2.8 and now Sony FE 50-150mm f2.0. These are all big and heavy. Of all these, I think the Canon RF 24-105mm f2.8 comes close to being a "one" lens only for event shooting. The rest would require you (I would) to carry an additional wider than 24mm lens. However the f2.0 lenses have their fans. The reason for their existence is their versatility. Maybe these manufacturers realise they can't compete with the newcomers of prime lenses (in price). So they concentrate on high value (money) zoom lenses. What do you think?

Basic physics - a 70mm f2 has to be at least 70/2=35mm in diameter (by the definition of "f-number"). It "wants" to be about 70mm from the front element to the sensor, so the shorter flange distances doesn't help. They can play some games with the multiple lens groups to shorten the lens.

For long lenses, most of the "weight benefit" has to come from lighter materials (thus a lot of plastic rather than all metal barrels. They can also gain a bit from more sophisticated optics. I think the RF lenses also use more in-camera processing to correct for distortion, which can simplify the lens design and save some weight.

But the big difference has to come from going to higher f-numbers. Weight tends to grow by the cube of the f-number as conventional refractive lenses grow 3-dimensionally with f-number (diameter/area and thickness).

You do gain on the wide-angle end, and you don't need as much (or any) of a real group of relay lenses (this is why, at a certain point, as the lenses have short focal lengths, the lenses get longer again).

Today's better Zooms are much sharper than the old Zooms and rival old prime lenses in terms of sharpness. Most would rather have the convenience of a zoom than switch lenses, and there is not much of a compromise on image sharpness.

Zeee · Apr 23, 2025

Otaraka said:
Bruce Trail Hiker said:

Remember when the mirrorless revolution started, everyone is saying camera and lenses will be smaller than the DSLR equivalent.

Guess what, they are getting bigger and heavier, especially the fast zoom. Examples are:

Canon RF 28-70mm f2.0, Sigma 28-105mm f2.8, Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8, Sony FE 28-70mm f2.0, Canon 24-105mm f2.8 and now Sony FE 50-150mm f2.0. These are all big and heavy. Of all these, I think the Canon RF 24-105mm f2.8 comes close to being a "one" lens only for event shooting. The rest would require you (I would) to carry an additional wider than 24mm lens. However the f2.0 lenses have their fans. The reason for their existence is their versatility. Maybe these manufacturers realise they can't compete with the newcomers of prime lenses (in price). So they concentrate on high value (money) zoom lenses. What do you think?

Click to expand...

The mirrorless revolution in that regard is the phone, which is pretty much impossible to beat on size and portability, and so far, computational processing.

ILC cant compete with that which is why the focus is on fast lenses and large sensors.

One thing about DLSR vs Mirrorless. No MFA required which is why phones were consistently sharp. When MFA first came out I thought this is great. After a few years I began to loathe it. I will never miss needing to do that.

Zeee · Apr 23, 2025

Will T said:
Yes it does matter and bigger is better for camera bodies (not more weight though) if you can’t get a good grip on your camera what good is it when you drop and smash your gear???

Many years ago I got a G11 as a gift. I rarely used it but took only for a short trip to Asia last year. I didn't like it. Too small. No meat to it.

KLO82 · Apr 23, 2025

Bruce Trail Hiker said:
Remember when the mirrorless revolution started, everyone is saying camera and lenses will be smaller than the DSLR equivalent.

Guess what, they are getting bigger and heavier, especially the fast zoom. Examples are:

Canon RF 28-70mm f2.0, Sigma 28-105mm f2.8, Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8, Sony FE 28-70mm f2.0, Canon 24-105mm f2.8 and now Sony FE 50-150mm f2.0. These are all big and heavy. Of all these, I think the Canon RF 24-105mm f2.8 comes close to being a "one" lens only for event shooting. The rest would require you (I would) to carry an additional wider than 24mm lens. However the f2.0 lenses have their fans. The reason for their existence is their versatility. Maybe these manufacturers realise they can't compete with the newcomers of prime lenses (in price). So they concentrate on high value (money) zoom lenses. What do you think?

I think Sony is on the right track. They are making quite an effort to make high end lenses smaller and lighter:

Canon RF 24-70mm f2.8 : 900 grams

Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II: 695 grams

Sony FE 28-70mm f2 GM: 918 grams

Canon RF 28-70mm f2: 1430 grams

So, Sony 28-70mm f2 weighs same as Canon's 24-70mm f2.8, and Sony's 24-70mm f2.8 is a lot lighter. I like Sony's approach.

Ephemeris · Apr 24, 2025

Bruce Trail Hiker said:
Remember when the mirrorless revolution started, everyone is saying camera and lenses will be smaller than the DSLR equivalent.

Guess what, they are getting bigger and heavier, especially the fast zoom. Examples are:

Canon RF 28-70mm f2.0, Sigma 28-105mm f2.8, Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8, Sony FE 28-70mm f2.0, Canon 24-105mm f2.8 and now Sony FE 50-150mm f2.0. These are all big and heavy. Of all these, I think the Canon RF 24-105mm f2.8 comes close to being a "one" lens only for event shooting. The rest would require you (I would) to carry an additional wider than 24mm lens. However the f2.0 lenses have their fans. The reason for their existence is their versatility. Maybe these manufacturers realise they can't compete with the newcomers of prime lenses (in price). So they concentrate on high value (money) zoom lenses. What do you think?

R2D2 · Apr 24, 2025

Bruce Trail Hiker said:
Remember when the mirrorless revolution started, everyone is saying camera and lenses will be smaller than the DSLR equivalent.

Guess what, they are getting bigger and heavier, especially the fast zoom. Examples are:

Canon RF 28-70mm f2.0, Sigma 28-105mm f2.8, Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8, Sony FE 28-70mm f2.0, Canon 24-105mm f2.8 and now Sony FE 50-150mm f2.0. These are all big and heavy. Of all these, I think the Canon RF 24-105mm f2.8 comes close to being a "one" lens only for event shooting. The rest would require you (I would) to carry an additional wider than 24mm lens.

They are all top-shelf performers. Unrelated to "making things smaller."

Bruce Trail Hiker said:
However the f2.0 lenses have their fans. The reason for their existence is their versatility.

Not versatility. Capability.

Bruce Trail Hiker said:
Maybe these manufacturers realise they can't compete with the newcomers of prime lenses (in price). So they concentrate on high value (money) zoom lenses. What do you think?

I don't mind the manuf producing high-end lenses. They just have to produce some excellent mid-grade+ lenses too. Which Canon has been quite active doing as of late.

More of the RF lineup will be filling in. :-D

R2

stevevuoso · Apr 24, 2025

You said it in your original comment, but then you cited examples of lenses that don't have a DSLR equivalent.

Equivalent bodies and lenses are still smaller.

Andy01 · Apr 24, 2025

stevevuoso said:
You said it in your original comment, but then you cited examples of lenses that don't have a DSLR equivalent.

Equivalent bodies and lenses are still smaller.

+1

Examples;

R8 + RF 24-105L f4 vs 6D ii + EF 24-105L ii - 23mm shorter, 12mm narrower, 25mm slimmer, 399g lighter (ie. DSLR is 34% heavier)

R8 + RF 100-400 vs 6D ii + EF 100-400L ii - 37mm shorter, 12mm narrower, 34mm slimmer, 1314g lighter (admittedly not truly like-for-like lenses, but EF didn't have a cheaper 100-400 and RF 100-400 performs well - at 47% of the DSLR weight)

R8 + RF 100-500 vs 6D ii + EF 100-400L ii - 394g lighter (ie. DSLR is 19% heavier in spite of the additional 100mm reach on R8)

So yes, the RF gear is mostly significantly smaller and lighter than the EF DSLR gear.

I can now carry a bag (relatively heavy TT Retrospective 10) with R10, R8 and zoom lenses (including RF 24-105L f4) that cover a FF FoV equivalent of 15mm to 640mm, plus accessories that weighs 5.6kg in total. That is just not possible with a FF DSLR + lenses, never mind a second body.

Bruce Trail Hiker · Apr 24, 2025

stevevuoso said:
You said it in your original comment, but then you cited examples of lenses that don't have a DSLR equivalent.

Equivalent bodies and lenses are still smaller.

I was responding to another post regarding "DSLR equivalent". Finished writing the respond hit "Post". An error occurred, the post was deteled.

Here is my shorter re-write.

DSLR equivalent: Bad choice of word/comparison on my part.

In general, the gears that I am using and carrying are heavier. Gripped R5/R5M2 with the RF 85mm f1.2, RF 100-500mm and the RF 24-105mm f2.8 are heavy. To counter this increase in weight I have resolved to using the very comfortable Optech strap (I have many straps but the Optech strap is the best and cheapest!). It is very comfortable for carrying haevy camera gears. I find that this strap don't dig into your shoulder after a day out.

Andy01 · Apr 24, 2025

Bruce Trail Hiker said:
stevevuoso said:

You said it in your original comment, but then you cited examples of lenses that don't have a DSLR equivalent.

Equivalent bodies and lenses are still smaller.

Click to expand...

I was responding to another post regarding "DSLR equivalent". Finished writing the respond hit "Post". An error occurred, the post was deteled.

Here is my shorter re-write.

DSLR equivalent: Bad choice of word/comparison on my part.

In general, the gears that I am using and carrying are heavier. Gripped R5/R5M2 with the RF 85mm f1.2,

R5 ii + RF 85 f1.2 is 30g heavier than 5D iv + EF 85 f1.2 ii - not much really

RF 100-500L is 90g lighter than EF 100-400L ii in spite of the FL difference. Add a 1.4x TC to 100-400 and difference disappears.

RF 24-105L f2.8 has no EF equivalent to compare to - perhaps a EF 24-70L f2.8 + 1.4x TC (at 290g lighter than RF & significantly less convenience) ?

Bruce Trail Hiker said:
RF 100-500mm and the RF 24-105mm f2.8 are heavy. To counter this increase in weight I have resolved to using the very comfortable Optech strap (I have many straps but the Optech strap is the best and cheapest!). It is very comfortable for carrying haevy camera gears. I find that this strap don't dig into your shoulder after a day out.

You have picked some particularly heavy & high quality lenses, two of which have no EF equivalent, so it is a bit of a stretch to extrapolate these results to "all" mirrorless gear.

For the vast majority of RF users, the RF gear is significantly smaller & lighter than EF gear was.

Bruce Trail Hiker · Apr 24, 2025

Andy01 said:
Bruce Trail Hiker said:

stevevuoso said:

You said it in your original comment, but then you cited examples of lenses that don't have a DSLR equivalent.

Equivalent bodies and lenses are still smaller.

Click to expand...

I was responding to another post regarding "DSLR equivalent". Finished writing the respond hit "Post". An error occurred, the post was deteled.

Here is my shorter re-write.

DSLR equivalent: Bad choice of word/comparison on my part.

In general, the gears that I am using and carrying are heavier. Gripped R5/R5M2 with the RF 85mm f1.2,

Click to expand...

R5 ii + RF 85 f1.2 is 30g heavier than 5D iv + EF 85 f1.2 ii - not much really

RF 100-500L is 90g lighter than EF 100-400L ii in spite of the FL difference. Add a 1.4x TC to 100-400 and difference disappears.

RF 24-105L f2.8 has no EF equivalent to compare to - perhaps a EF 24-70L f2.8 + 1.4x TC (at 290g lighter than RF & significantly less convenience) ?

Andy01 said:

RF 100-500mm and the RF 24-105mm f2.8 are heavy. To counter this increase in weight I have resolved to using the very comfortable Optech strap (I have many straps but the Optech strap is the best and cheapest!). It is very comfortable for carrying haevy camera gears. I find that this strap don't dig into your shoulder after a day out.

Click to expand...

You have picked some particularly heavy & high quality lenses, two of which have no EF equivalent, so it is a bit of a stretch to extrapolate these results to "all" mirrorless gear.

For the vast majority of RF users, the RF gear is significantly smaller & lighter than EF gear was.

Equivalent - bad choice of word on my part.

I am just saying what I use and carrying now are bigger and heavier. And this is me coming from the Pentax DSLR system !! I know I have to carry heavier geras when I decided on the Canon R system.

Don't know what gears you have - am assuming they are smaller and lighter.

Ephemeris · Apr 24, 2025

Bruce Trail Hiker said:
Andy01 said:

Bruce Trail Hiker said:

stevevuoso said:

You said it in your original comment, but then you cited examples of lenses that don't have a DSLR equivalent.

Equivalent bodies and lenses are still smaller.

Click to expand...

I was responding to another post regarding "DSLR equivalent". Finished writing the respond hit "Post". An error occurred, the post was deteled.

Here is my shorter re-write.

DSLR equivalent: Bad choice of word/comparison on my part.

In general, the gears that I am using and carrying are heavier. Gripped R5/R5M2 with the RF 85mm f1.2,

Click to expand...

R5 ii + RF 85 f1.2 is 30g heavier than 5D iv + EF 85 f1.2 ii - not much really

RF 100-500L is 90g lighter than EF 100-400L ii in spite of the FL difference. Add a 1.4x TC to 100-400 and difference disappears.

RF 24-105L f2.8 has no EF equivalent to compare to - perhaps a EF 24-70L f2.8 + 1.4x TC (at 290g lighter than RF & significantly less convenience) ?

Bruce Trail Hiker said:

RF 100-500mm and the RF 24-105mm f2.8 are heavy. To counter this increase in weight I have resolved to using the very comfortable Optech strap (I have many straps but the Optech strap is the best and cheapest!). It is very comfortable for carrying haevy camera gears. I find that this strap don't dig into your shoulder after a day out.

Click to expand...

You have picked some particularly heavy & high quality lenses, two of which have no EF equivalent, so it is a bit of a stretch to extrapolate these results to "all" mirrorless gear.

For the vast majority of RF users, the RF gear is significantly smaller & lighter than EF gear was.

Click to expand...

Equivalent - bad choice of word on my part.

I am just saying what I use and carrying now are bigger and heavier. And this is me coming from the Pentax DSLR system !! I know I have to carry heavier geras when I decided on the Canon R system.

Don't know what gears you have - am assuming they are smaller and lighter.

Same for us Bruce. It's got heavier. I think in one of my posts one setup is 4kg (or was it 5?).

I think I would make the argument that the RF system is part of the reason we have these heavy lenses that didn't exists before. For us notably is the 28-70/2, 24-105/2.8Z, 70-200/2.8z, 100-300/2.8.

Then add a Tele.

I appreciate we had big lenses such as the EF 300 F2.8band we had Tele converters but now we can still use AF with a Tele, in almost darkness and still get half decent noise performance.

We also have the movie side of things, so add a powerzoom to two of those lenses as well.

Must dash - spinach to eat.

Bruce Trail Hiker said:
--
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@ManKhunChan/videos

Andy01 · Apr 24, 2025

Bruce Trail Hiker said:
Andy01 said:

Bruce Trail Hiker said:

stevevuoso said:

You said it in your original comment, but then you cited examples of lenses that don't have a DSLR equivalent.

Equivalent bodies and lenses are still smaller.

Click to expand...

I was responding to another post regarding "DSLR equivalent". Finished writing the respond hit "Post". An error occurred, the post was deteled.

Here is my shorter re-write.

DSLR equivalent: Bad choice of word/comparison on my part.

In general, the gears that I am using and carrying are heavier. Gripped R5/R5M2 with the RF 85mm f1.2,

Click to expand...

R5 ii + RF 85 f1.2 is 30g heavier than 5D iv + EF 85 f1.2 ii - not much really

RF 100-500L is 90g lighter than EF 100-400L ii in spite of the FL difference. Add a 1.4x TC to 100-400 and difference disappears.

RF 24-105L f2.8 has no EF equivalent to compare to - perhaps a EF 24-70L f2.8 + 1.4x TC (at 290g lighter than RF & significantly less convenience) ?

Bruce Trail Hiker said:

RF 100-500mm and the RF 24-105mm f2.8 are heavy. To counter this increase in weight I have resolved to using the very comfortable Optech strap (I have many straps but the Optech strap is the best and cheapest!). It is very comfortable for carrying haevy camera gears. I find that this strap don't dig into your shoulder after a day out.

Click to expand...

You have picked some particularly heavy & high quality lenses, two of which have no EF equivalent, so it is a bit of a stretch to extrapolate these results to "all" mirrorless gear.

For the vast majority of RF users, the RF gear is significantly smaller & lighter than EF gear was.

Click to expand...

Equivalent - bad choice of word on my part.

I am just saying what I use and carrying now are bigger and heavier. And this is me coming from the Pentax DSLR system !! I know I have to carry heavier geras when I decided on the Canon R system.

And the reason the gear is heavier has little to do with whether it is for DSLR or mirrorless, and everything to do with it being more capable.

Imagine how heavy it would have been if you had had the truly equivalent DSLR gear

No different to a person upgrading from a small Rebel + twin lens kit to a 5D iv + fast L lenses - yes the gear got a lot heavier due to the added capability, and nothing to do with the "system".

It is a bit like a person "complaining" that their R1 + RF 600L f4 is heavier than the 450D + EF-S 55-250 they used to own - not exactly an "apples for apples" comparison :-D

Unfortunately the size & weight is often the price to pay for added capability (speed, reach, convenience etc) in photography. A person could easily have a FF R body + 85mm prime, 24-105 zoom and 100-400/500 zoom that weighs a LOT less than half what your choices weigh - but they wouldn't be as capable.

Bruce Trail Hiker said:
Don't know what gears you have - am assuming they are smaller and lighter.

It is in my gear list/signature, and yes, it is much smaller and lighter.

Size does matter - even for mirrorless

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts