Seems a little boring, given that Canon promised new and inventive lenses along with the R system.
The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 at 135mm isn't massive, and so that lens seems a little fringe.
Why no 17-55mm f/2.8? Why no telephoto lenses faster than f/7.1? Why no L primes smaller than their EF counterparts?
Did we really need a junky 24-105?
"We" are not representative. Maybe Canon sees its only chance to reinstall FF cameras in "normal" households because this is the only chance to differentiate from smart phones.
In that case, if a 600$ mirrorless full frame body will enter the market, this lens is the only chance to stay within 1000$ / EUR for advanced "normal" users.
While "we" are able to buy a 3 000 $/EUR camera / lens / whatever every year or every two years this is not possible for maybe 80% of the population of industrialized countries.
Or think about a beginning reporter in a non-industrialized country, where a high yearly income is close to 3000 $/EUR!
I am more or less a prime shooter but I used my M50 with the EF-M 18-55 for a week because I had to reduce my luggage and it worked very well photographically. IQ and low light capabilities are on the lower side and I am really spoiled with EF-M 32 but for 90% of photograph taking people it's more than enough!