Oh, how the baloney flows when the high and mighty photographers and gear-heads on this forum get a chance to slam Canon.
Canon produces a lens that is much lighter and smaller. It is an alternative to a lens that they have already released with the same focal lengths. People on here react as if this new lens is the only RF option for a 24-105mm lens. If you are not looking for a cheaper, lighter lens that obviously doesn't perform to "L" standards, don't buy it. You have the high-level option.
Mirrorless lenses that could not otherwise be made with the same size, weight, and cost, are being made with in-camera distortion correction. People react as if this a crime. Other companies are doing it - and in some cases, even pro level lenses are made this way. The correction is automatic. Unless you are going out of your way to see the uncorrected version, you will never have to deal with it. Never. Again, you have the choice to not buy this type of lens. As I mentioned, earlier, Olympus' 12-100mm M.Zuiko lens is made with auto-correction. Check out some reviews and you won't even see a mention of it in most reviews. A few review do mention it - almost in passing. It is not an issue - unless, of course, it happens to be Canon and you are a high and mighty Canon forum warrior. If you actually take photos with the lens - as one member here has reported, -the lens seems to be a good value for the cost. Needless to say, those complaining the most will never have had any intention of buying the lens. What they want is a lens that performs equally to the RF 24-105mm f/4 and costs half as much. How dare Canon for not giving people that lens!
Only beginners will buy the lens! Well, I just bought one. Have sold photos over the years, but not a pro. But not a beginner. In fact, have over 40 years experience. And experience tells me that unless you are a pixel peeper, you won't see much difference between lenses. My best selling photo was shot using a crop camera and the 18-55 kit lens. And guess what, you can't see any difference between an 8 x 10 print using that camera and lens than there is with shots taken with my 6D and "L" EF 24-105mm lens. That type of talk is blasphemy on a forum where unless you shoot FF, with "L" lenses, and a camera with at least 30mkp (soon to be 45mp) you are a beginner, or ignorant.
This is an inexpensive lens, with an emphasis on being smaller and lighter. Based on comments from those interested in mirrorless cameras, some folks (perhaps many) are looking for lighter and smaller lenses as an alternative. Why is that beyond the understanding of people on his forum?