Which zoom lens/lenses (24-105, 24-240, 70-200 etc)?

LennyLevino wrote:

The RF24-240 is the first RF lens I bought, and I still use it even though I have gone on to buy over $15,000 of RF lenses. It is the most "fun" lens I have, but I would say the RF100-400 is a better "value" based on image quality. I would have kicked to the curb the RF24-105 STM.

Ok, so the 24-240 is considerably better in terms of IQ vs the 24-105, in the focal range 24-105?

That I don't know, but from what I remember reading a few years ago, the image quality is similar between the 24-105 STM and the RF24-240 USM over the same range. The big advantage of the RF24-240 is the USM focusing, which is faster and more likely to lock, and the extra zoom range.

So I'd be better off with a 24-240, and then adding a 100-400 on top of it down the line if I want more reach and/or better IQ at the telephoto lengths?

If you eventually get better lenses, the RF24-240 would be a "keeper," whereas the RF24-105 STM is a bit of a throwaway.

Lets say I could only use my 24-240 in the range of 24-105 (since I would hypothetically own the 100-400mm as well), the IQ would still be that much better that it would justify the extra cost and size/weight over the 24-105?

Overall, I would suggest buying fewer but better lenses.

I would get the RF100-400 instead of the RF70-200f4. On my last big trip, I found my RF70-200f2.8L stayed in the bag or at the hotel. I would typically pack the RF15-35, RF24-70, and RF100-500L. For my uses (others love the lens), the 70-200f4 is neither fish nor fowl, it is not a very long telephoto, and F4 is not particularly fast for indoor or portrait use. What kills both the RF70-200L lenses for me is that neither accepts a TC. As such, it kept loosing our when I only wanted to carry 3 lenses.

The 100-400mm sounds very good indeed. I guess I should pick this up regardless.

If you don't have eyes, the budget, or the willingness to carry the weight of the RF100-500, the RF100-400  is a great pick.  From everything I have seen, it is the best lens for the money, particularly if you can pick it up on sale.

How about this then (a new proposal); RF 24-105mm f/4L + RF 100-400mm? This would be way more expensive than the other kits but do you think it'd be worth it? Or would you rather still have 24-240 + 100-400?

That's a tougher one. A lot depends on how you think you will buy in the future. As with the RF70-200F4, it is neither fish nor fowl at f4.  I would (and did) pick the RF24-240 over the RF24-105f4. But a lot of people like the RF24-105 f4L. I eventually bought the RF24-70f2.8, so it would be redundant, but even with that lens and the RF70-200f2.8L, I find reasons to keep using the RF24-240. If you are never going to get the RF24-70f2.8L, then the RF24-105f4L is probably not a bad choice, but it depends a lot on your preferences and future plans.

A big caveat, these comments are for what I like to shoot. Other people shooting different things may differ.