I see that you decided to ignore my suggestion to try and get your facts straight before you post drivel.
Please tell me, how is it a fact that images from the 14-35/4 and 16/2.8 are required to be both cropped and distortion corrected? That is false, correcting the distortion actually fills in the corners. No cropping is needed. In fact, as I've stated (and shown) previously the 14-35/4 at the wide end, when converted with DxO PhotoLab, delivers images with a field of view equivalent to 13.5mm on the EF 11-24/4L, and the corrected corners are just as sharp (the 11-24 has almost no corner distortion in that comparison because 13mm is the point where the lens crosses from barrel to pincushion distortion, although there is a small amount of mustache distortion in the mid-frame throughout the range). That means that, after correction, the 14-35 at it's wide end (where UWA zoom performance is generally worst) is delivering IQ equivalent to a lens costing double the amount and with excellent optical corrections (and more than double the weight to achieve them), when the latter lens is not at an extreme of its zoom range.
If the above was confusing, the short version is that the RF 14-35/4 delivers IQ every bit as good as the EF 16-35/4L, and does so with an extra 2 mm on the wide end while being smaller, lighter, and still taking the same 77mm filters. Yes, it costs ~$300 more (depending on rebates)...and that doesn't seem unreasonable for a lens that delivers a wider focal range in a smaller package with equivalent optical performance. Maybe the price tag of the 14-35 puts it out of your reach, but that's a you problem.
As for the price of the RF 16/2.8 being 'inflated over the much better quality EF lenses that existed before', that lens costs $300 and there is nothing like it in the EF lineup.