Hi Act444And what's more, side by side, the differences between EF and RF 24-105 lenses are extremely subtle. I blew off version II of the EF because it wasn't any sharper, and even the "improved" RF version is full of compromises. Appears slightly better at the long end, but slightly worse(!) at the wide end...
I mean, not a bad lens, think it will be an adequate one-lens-fits-all travel kit, but it just simply isn't clearly superior to the EF version. Not in the way that the 50 1.2 is.
I've been interested to hear more about the RF 24-105/4L. This review https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_rf_24_105mm_f4_l_is_review suggests the RF version is a step up from the EF versions, but I take it you disagree with that? I'm curious because for all the attention the RF 50/1.2L and 28-70/2L lenses are getting, I'll be struggling to see RF as being a significant improvement if it isn't delivering better performance than EF for things like the 24-105 and the 35/1.8 macro.
As for the RF 50/1.2L, it's a much newer, bigger and heavier lens than the the EF 50/1.2L. To me the more appropriate comparison is the RF 50/1.2L against things like the 50 Art and the Otus 55. From what I've seen so far, the RF 501.2L seems nice bearing in mind it has about a half-stop advantage in aperture, but subject to that it doesn't seem much better than, say, the 50 Art. For all the positive reviews I'm seeing about the RF 50/1.2L, the comparisons with the 50 Art don't blow me away, eg see https://www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-50mm-f1-2l-usm-review/4/ and https://www.thephoblographer.com/2018/09/25/review-canon-rf-50mm-f1-2-l-usm-canon-rf-mount/
Overall I'm more in interested in the EOS R than I expected to be (I really didn't expect to be interested at all), so I'm not trying to bash the R system. The thing which has got me most interested is what I've seen some people saying about the AF accuracy with wide apertures and in low light. However, I remain to be convinced about how much more the RF mount offers over EF. We shall see!