The EF 11-24 is a wonderful lens, often considered to buy one. I would certainly not purchase the RF-Version, because it will probably cost twice the EF and have crazy vignetting.
My thoughts went immediately to what Neuro said... It seems like a loss to use RF lens in this use case, as we can use the filter slots in the EF/RF adapter. In fact, there are some really cool filter options now from Breakthrough and others that fit into those and their own adapters.
A few years ago, Canon let me borrow the 11-24 f/4, and I compared it to the Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 and the Sigma 12-24 f/4. The upshot of the results was that the Sigma 14-24 was my favorite, partly because of the wider aperture, partly for price. For all the praises sung for the 11-24, I found it to be about only the same IQ as the Sigma 14-24 f/2.8, while the 12-24 f/4 Sigma was slightly disappointing. Of course, neither of those Sigma zooms is going to get you 11 mm, and while that may seem a small difference, it really is not.
My recommendation would be to go with the Sigma 14-24 f/2.8, and an Irix 11mm f/4 prime, which together will cost you about half the price of an EF 11-24 f/4.
I use filters pretty seldomly, but when I do, it's often in landscape/water photography, which is more of a slow, considered process (at least versus frenetic wildlife/action stuff). So when I'm using filters, it's very often the wide end of the focal lengths anyways, so I prefer those to be EF mount lenses.
PS: I do use the filter adapter on my 600mm f/4 Mark II, and very, very occasionally, it affords me the opportunity to use both the Canon drop-in polarizer *together with* a variable neutral density filter in the adapter's filter slot. Which is pretty cool, seeing as Canon likely thought this impossible back in 2012 when the lens came out.