Is Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8 unavoidable for interior/architecture photography?

atolk wrote:

Thank you very much!

Now that I am looking into older cheaper EF lenses, what about the EF 17-40mm F4L? It’s considerable less when sold used. Is the extra 1mm the only difference? Coming from 24mm on the wide end I assume I will be equally happy with 16 or 17mm.

I have nothing but bad to say about the EF 17-40 Personally I won't even use the L by the name. Before my R5 I had a Sigma 15-35 that I bought when I had my 10D, was a popular lens at the time for many 10D and 20D users. I used for quite a few Canon DSLRs, all under 20 MP. The lens just was not cutting it on my R5, I sold the lens, which I regret. I should have saved it for my daughter who is using my older camera. I bought a 17-40 ignoring all of the negative reviews, my thought was how bad could a L lens really be on my R5. I was so wrong, hated the lens the first time I reviewed my images. Tried the lens several times, never really could get any images I liked with the lens. The issue was not just sharpness, but the overall feel of the images. Honestly they just looked like something that comes from just above a cheap kit lens.

I sold the lens and bought a very clean used EF16-35 f4 IS L last summer for a little over $600. Night and day difference. If you are going the EF route for wide and for the price. Great lens, works great on the R5.

BTW, I have nothing bad to say about Sigma ART lenses. The one I have takes great pictures. My only challenge is many ART lens and built like tanks and often weigh the same. As I get older weight is more of an issue, but for the younger set it probably does not make a difference. For years I did not care about the size or weight of my gear. I do now.