R10 is a great camera TBH, just don't push her after 1600iso.
The "cheap" R lenses are actually pretty good, I have the 16, the 35 and the 85, all bought used.
The 16mm well, I paid 200€ used for a 16mm f2.8 so you can't ask the moon, it does it's job (for me, that almost never go under 35mm, usually 90% of my photography starts from 50mm upwards) of being the emergency lens for those 2 times per year where the wide side of the 24-70 is not going to cut it on fullframe (it saved me with group pictures in super small spaces at the last wedding), but can also be a walk-around light lens for the R10 when going hiking/vacation.
The 35 (paid 380€) is actually an amazing lens, i find very few distortions even with people (of course not for close up portraits), and it's bright enough at f1.8 (1:2 macro is nice but I'm not really using it that way). Great walk-around lens for FF, I could shoot an entire wedding just with it (I prefer the 50mm as my go-to-lens, but for a wedding with one lens, a 35mm is more flexible).
The 85 (paid 520€) has an amazing image quality, the IS is working good, the 1:2 macro feature is good for close portraits and details on FF, and it's damn perfect (1:1 macro) on R10 to photograph rings at weddings, and any other small stuff. Yes, AF is not super fast (but is damn precise), and tbh it hunts a little bit while shooting super backlit (meaning with the sun in the frame, behind the subject), and there's some slight flare and loss of contrast, but just in some selected difficult situations. However is still MUCH better then the old EF 85 1.8 that was 1/3rd stop brighter and has a marginal better AF, but lacked IS and had less IQ. With the 85 you basically buy two lens in one, the classic 85, but also a mini 100 L macro one stop brighter. So it's worth its price.
The "AF problem" on the 85 is given by the half macro feature; if it wasn't 1:2 macro then the focus throw would have been much less, and would have been faster. But if I have to choose between little slower with macro, or super fast without macro, I still would go with the half macro function, which I find more useful. If I want to shoot a portrait with a dream lens I'll use the Sigma ART 135 which is 10 times better and 10 times faster; but also 2 or 3 times bigger and heavier, so it's a matter of priorities.
Short answer? 16 is good for what you pay (no one else is giving you a 16mm AF lens that bright at that price) if you are not a heavy wide-angle shooter, the 35 is overall one of the best lenses I've tried in my life (and I use interchangeable lens cameras since 1999 in the film era) and it's worth its weight in gold, the 85 is not perfect with AF and flare (but only in harsh conditions), but IQ is L-like even wide open, IS is super effective and 1:2 macro a blessing, if you aren't an heavy macro shooter is like having a mini 100 L macro for free.
I agree that the RF - L lenses are way overpriced, and I'll never touch one of them in the short-to-medium term (maybe something used, but surely not before 5/8 years from now, I need the used price to REALLY drop to be able to afford them...the most probable candidate is the 70-200 f2.8 because my EF is the first from 1995, without IS, so while still optically stunning, is surely a very old design by today's standards), my actual EF - L and Sigma ART lenses has nothing to be ashamed compared to the RF counterparts.
