Been shooting real estate for 3 years now and the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L is my absolute go-to. Yeah, it's pricey but the edge-to-edge sharpness is incredible and you rarely need anything wider than 16mm. The f/2.8 is clutch for those darker interiors without having to crank the ISO. I pair it with the RF 24-70 f/2.8 for detail shots and it covers 90% of what I need.

Unpopular opinion maybe, but I love my RF 14-35mm f/4L. Ultra-wide without the crazy distortion you get with fisheyes, and f/4 is plenty for real estate when you're shooting at f/8-f/11 anyway for sharpness. Plus it's way lighter than the 2.8 versions when you're doing 15+ properties a week!

Agreeing with the logic that f/4 is the sweet spot because for interiors youre basically *always* stopping down to keep the corners sharp and get that deep depth of field so you dont really need the heavy f/2.8 glass. Looking at the market landscape for the RF mount, you have to weigh the "brand tax" against the actual technical ROI: * Native lens profiles make correcting rectilinear distortion a one-click process in post.
* Integration with the R5 Mark II's internal correction data ensures corners aren't muddy.
* First-party glass holds its value better if you ever need to liquidate or trade up. It basically comes down to workflow efficiency versus initial overhead costs and honestly for a pro setup that native communication is worth the premium.