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

Apologies if I repeat anything, I've only skimmed the threat
Every time I start in a new system I get the 24-105 - then almost never use it
The RF 24-105 is a great lens, better than either version of the EF I had before and WAY WAY WAY better than my copy of the Sony. Reason I stopped using it was I got the 24-240mm which proved just as sharp in the same range (but does lack some tonal/colour depth or something, hard to put a finger on it...), mine sees a fair bit of use (2-3 shoots a week on average, mostly construction sites and outdoor ministerial tours of them), I'm finding it's getting softer at the longer end than when I got it about a year ago so I'd question it's longevity over an L-series
I shot conferences for many years with only a 16-35 & 70-200, both the f4 versions, I've go the 14-35 f4L and 70-200 f4L and both are fantastic, the 24-240mm only really sees more use because swapping lenses on a construction site = dust
Anyway, long story short, you can capture what you want as long as you plan what you want to capture - if it's a bit of everything (or like me you can't be bothered thinking) the 24-240 covered the most bases. the 15-30 (or 16mm) and 70-200 would be better but involve a lens swap and you'll be amazed how much you won't miss the 30-70 range (I certainly don't when shooting conferences). The 24-105... I need to learn to stop buying those, but the RF version is pretty solid (I do have an EF 24-70 f2.8mk2 that always wins out), for me it serves as a spare lens when I'm shooting video or time-lapse with the R7 depending on the focal lengths required. The 16mm and the 100-400 would cover wide views/landscapes and wildlife/plants very well... just need to mentally ignore the angles of view in between.
The 100-400 is fun - love it's size, but I've found when image quality is paramount I'll still pull out my Sony and the 200-600 (*I don't own all of this gear personally, but have access though work, the Sony gear is mine, canon is work owned)

Personally, I like having the flexibility of keeping my system relatively light, if I need to. I would go with a two additional lens solution here, the 7.1stm and 100-400.

The s t m gives you the option to have a very light and decent range walk around lens. And it seems to mostly cover the range you go to most of the time. And despite being slower, the Iq is very similar to the rf L version that I also have.

The only drawback I see with the 24-240 is that it's kind of large to keep on the camera all the time if you don't want to carry a slightly bulkier lens everywhere.  I like to keep my actual rig small, even if that means carrying a bag with another lens in it.

Also, if your budget allows it, the 70-200f4 is a pretty good all around lens as well, and although it's relatively small, it's not small compared to most of the other options you're looking at here...

LennyLevino wrote:

I am looking for a nice zoom lens or two to complete my travel and hiking kit. I have a Canon R6 and the following RF lenses currently: 15-30mm STM, 16mm STM, 50mm STM, 85mm STM.

I am mainly debating between the RF 24-240mm f/4.5-6.3 IS USM, vs RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 STM + RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM. Locally, the price for either kit would be about the same ($900).

The benefits of the 24-240mm is I would have only one lens that could do pretty much all I need. But with the two lens setup would gain almost twice the focal length. I'm guessing telephoto range (around 200mm+) would be better on the RF 100-400 as well.

A third option is to get the 70-200mm f/4L. It could probably become more of a hassle though as I can't just walk outside with one lens attached to the camera and expect to capture most of what I want/need.

So here are the kits I could do and fit in my camera bag, combining with the lenses I already own:

My recommendation - start with 1 add the other later  (24-105 | 100-400mm):

1. RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 (already own)
2. RF 24-105mm f/4 (yes, just the F4 version)
3. RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 ($599) Save up for this if you really want it and don't have the cash right now - or keep saving for something better or different.

Pros: In the history of 24-1xx/4 (or similar zooms) there are only 2 that are actually great.  So good in fact that most 24-70/2.8s aren't as good optically.  Canon's RF is one, the Nikon Z24-120/4 is the other.  If you care about image quality you'll skip everything else to own this.
Cons: You might think cost, Until you try it.  After which you'll beg, borrow, or steal to have it.

Pay once, cry once.  You will never ever regret having great glass.

This is really simple, get the RF 24-104 stm and the RF 100-400 and go hike.

Your making this 100% harder then you have to.  First you will NOT go hiking with 4 lens for long.

Get kit #1 and your done.

I have all the lens's you have listed,  and use as needed.  I have gone from a backpack with 4-5 lens's to 1 or 2 at the most.  With 2, one is on the body and one is on a GoWing Lens Flipper.  The reason is simple as I grow older my stuff puts on weight faster than I do   I use the RF 24-105 stm 80% of the time now.  A bit over a year ago I traded in 4 old EF lens I had not used for a long time and my EF 16-35f4* for the RF 14-35 f4

With the RF 24-105 stm and RF 100-400  you will have 24-400 covered with two very lite weight len's.  If you need more than 400 get the RF 1.4x its works GREAT on the rf 100-400.

YES I do own the RF 24-240 and it is an AWESOME lens and I still use it.  Plus sometimes I use it with the 14-35

* I really liked this lens but that  -2mm was needled