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

BBR5 wrote:

I've found the 24-240 to be great for travel. I wouldn't consider any difference in IQ between it and the 24-105 STM to be a deciding factor. The difference in size and weight between the two is noticeable.

The reach of the 100-400 is a significant advantage for wildlife. But you'll notice the length when carrying it.

I have no experience with the 70-200L.

Dustin Abbot wrote a very useful review of the 24-240. I recommend it if you shoot with the lens:

https://dustinabbott.net/2020/04/canon-rf-24-240mm-f4-6-3-is-review/

It’s definitely a very nice walk about lens if the size/weight doesn’t bother you. I wouldn’t get one because I already have lenses in that range. I’m also old-school, and such zooms traditionally sacrifice image quality, but we live an era of digital corrections which fix that.

What’s important to understand is that 240mm is not long enough for many telephoto cases. For instance, most MLB parks allow you to bring cameras. If you are right in front at first or third base, you can get great shots of 1st and 2nd base with a 240. But that’s it! If your seats are farther back, or if you want to get other shots, you’ll want the reach of a 100-400 or, better yet, the RF100-500.  That’s true for most outdoor sports, unless it’s high school baseball/softball where you’re allowed close access.  It’s also the case with most wildlife photography.  
For me, the 70-200 is something I use in large concert venues and for portraits.  I’ve used it for sports photography, often with a teleconverter. I don’t recommend it

This week, I’m going on vacation and bringing just one lens, so it’s the 24-70. Maybe the 24-240 would be better? But I’m not expecting to shoot wildlife or sporting events.

Then again, I think anyone who buys the 100-500 L has probably shot enough wildlife or sports to know why they’re buying it.