24-70mm f2.8 seemed like a no-brainer

atolk wrote:

As a part-time sports and event photographer, I think I am long overdue to add a 24-70mm f2.8 lens to my bag. The only lens more useful seems to be a 70-200mm f2.8, which I own. I have been getting by with an EF 24-105mm f4, but I am ready to upgrade in time for the homecoming game and indoor basketball.

Just when I thought an EF 24-70mm would be a no-brainer and simply a matter of finding a good used copy for about $1,400, I more or less instantly become aware of

1. RF 24-70mm f2.8 at $2,400 (new)

2. Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 DG OS HSM Art $1,200 (new)

3. RF 28-70 f2 $3,100 (new)

and all of a sudden I am in the familiar place: analysis paralysis and incessant video review watching.

Who has good advice on how I should approach this choice?

I do have 6D as my second body, so an EF version of any lens has some additional appeal from that perspective.

As usual, I am probably overlooking another valid option, but I have my hands full with these four.

To me it seems like an EF-mount lens would be most suitable. The RF versions are much more expensive, so the chances of your 6D being replaced as a 2nd body decrease significantly. As the 6D will stay, an EF version makes most sense. (Unless you also intend to keep the 24-105 as a back up as well).
Also since you managed with the EF24-105 F4 so far, putting in that much cash for RF versions does not seem a logical decision from an economical perspective.

If you can (relatively) easily afford them, the RF versions seem great options from purely the photographic perspective. And if you are pretty sure your future lies in RF mount, it may well be worth the investment.

I have a Tamron 24-70 G2 lens with EF mount, which I use on an R5 or R6. I already owned it from shooting DSLR. It is not my most often used lens, but it performs nicely. I used it for some cycling (Tour de France) recently and I did not notice any problems with the autofocus or burst rates.
Intending to stay on the RF-mount I did consider the RF24-70 as a future replacement, but in comparison with my current Tamron I do not get really better specs (same zoom range, f2.8, stabilisation, approximately same size (incl adapter).  I would probably need to add over 1500 in addition to a trade in on the Tamron, and I do not want to invest that much and hardly gain anything spec-wise.

I did not watch the youtube comparison video you shared, but in my experience modern lenses do AF pretty well, although some are a bit better than others. With sports, your focus technique and timing are likely more important then the AF performance of a decent lens. The chances of missing that really very important shot due to the lens not focussing adequately are (in my personal opinion) very small. So AF comparisons on Youtube I always take with some grain of salt as I doubt  most (amateur) photographers would actually really notice a difference in shots they miss due to poor AF performance.

Regards and success with your analysis.

P.S. Sorry for mentioning another option... just happen to own that one