I (subjectively) feel the RF 14-35mm and 70-200mm are doing a better job and it is a nice two-lens setup (or three lenses with the nifty-fifty).
I remember some two-line comment on a photo forum back in 1995 to that effect. "17-35/2.8, 50/1.4, and 70-200/2.8. That's all you need." Personally I went a different direction, mostly primes, but I always remembered that advice and and it doesn't seem to be wrong. It sounded more fun with a 50/1.4 instead of the current RF1.8, but I've made good arguments why the 1.8 now is as good as the 1.4 in the 1990s was, in every way, even in getting subject to pop out of a cluttered background. I'm intellectually convinced I'm right, but a native 1.4 still sounds more fun.
Like you I really liked the RF24-105/4: the size of the EF MkI but the sharpness of the EF MkII.
My personal wish isn't for a monster heavy highbuck 24-105/2.8, but rather an RF24-105/4 that is as sharp at 100 as the 100-500 is, instead of being what seems like half the resolution. I'd accept it being notably more expensive, or heavier, or both, if that's what it took. I don't need more spec, that's really plenty for most purposes. Since the 24-105 was one of their first-day lenses I hope it's also the first they replace with a MkII. No other lens in the lineup seems to need a MkII. Everything else is either insanely great, or, "pretty good but at such a low price that it probably can't be improved at anywhere near its current price."