I've not owned this one, but judging by the test results at TDP, the image quality is about what you would expect for a budget zoom - okayish. It may be fine depending on your needs.
Both the RF 16-28mm f/2.8 IS STM and RF 14-35mm f/4 L IS would be considerable steps up in quality. (I have owned both and can recommend.) Refurb copies of the 16-28 are sometimes on sale for $820 from Canon Direct.
All of these lenses require digital corrections, in case that is a consideration for you.
If you shoot things with a tripod and are looking for a quality wide angle with good sharpness across the frame, also consider the EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS. Still one of the best wide-angle zooms Canon has made.
Got a used one at a nice price last winter as I wanted more flexibility than e.g. the RF16 provides and wider FoV than the 24-105STM. As I mostly use the latter at 24mm, the 15-30 has proved very successful and has been glued to my R5 since I found the IQ to be very good indeed.
I use it almost 100% for landscape and slightly stopped down with no interest in blur or whatever intentional unsharpness is called. With DPP and lens correction I see nothing of the baddies some testers find so appalling. So what if the lens is designed to be digitally corrected. The images are great.
I really like the size and lightness of this lens. Originally I had my eyes on the 14-35 f/4 which is not all that much heavier. But my experience with several of the "cheap" STM´s are very positive, so why thow good money on something expensive if something lighter and cheaper gets to goods home? It is sellable after all if dissatisfaction comes creaping.
