As for the 24-70, I have never used it, but I think it's "bad" rep is ill founded, just look at the work done by Ira Block with it:
Totally agree with this. The origin of it is that when the lens was released, the only thing to compare it to in native FE mount was the Sony-Zeiss 35 and 55mm primes and that's what the comparisons were made against. It was also done before Adobe had lens correction profiles for LR/ACR. Compared to the two excellent primes, it wasn't quite as good at overlapping apertures. Should it surprise anyone that a 55 f/1.8 is better at f/4 than 24-70 f/4 is? No it shouldn't but the internet being a giant blowhard amplification system, the lens got lambasted because it wasn't as good as what it was being compared against. Reviews that compared the lens to the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8G and the Canon 24-70 f/4 were much more favorable as the lens is in the same general class of performance as those zooms in most regards. The one area where the lens really falls flat on it's face is in linear distortion if no lens correction is applied. It goes from severe pincushion on one end to severe barrel distortion on the other. And when these reviews were done, there was no correction in ACR/LR so unless you went in and created a manual lens profile (which I did) the lens really suffered relative to the others in that regard. But to make a long story short, the lens got unfairly plastered by doing comparisons to very good primes, not similar lenses from other manufacturers and then the internet amplification effect took over.
As a point of comparison, the 16-35 f/4 which is considered to be a good lens is really not any better (or worse) than the 24-70 but since it came out much later and had lens correction in Adobe software before the lens actually shipped got much better reviews. But if you compare the 16-35 at 21mm to a Zeiss Distagon 21 f/2.8 shot at f/4 the 21mm blows it away (I've done the comparison) in the corners - really not too different from what a Sony Zeiss 55 f/1.8 does to the 24-70. Again, this should not be surprising but since there was no native FE lens to compare it to in the midrange of the zoom when the 16-35 came out, that comparison didn't get made by reviewers in a huge hurry to be the first out of the gate with reviews. Even the very economical Sony 28mm f/2 is better than the 16-35 f/4 when both shot at f/4 - again, not surprising...
The 24-70 is a generally good zoom lens with too much linear distortion but that is corrected by in camera software if shooting JPG and by all of the RAW processors if shooting RAW. Expecting it to be better than primes that are 2 or more stops faster and then stopped down to get the same aperture is an unfair comparison.
Back to the OPs comments. I started out with mostly adapting my Nikon lenses but as more stuff has come out I am doing that less and less. I now have the Batis 25, Loxia 35, Loxia 50, Sony 70-200G, Sony Zeiss 16-35, and Sony Zeiss 24-70. I have the Loxia 21 on order and plan to buy the Voigtlander 12mm when it ships. At that point the only thing I will use an adapter on is my FF Fisheye, 15mm f/2.8, and 150mm Macro. A lot of people started out with an all or mostly adapter based lens strategy on the a7 series but many are slowly migrating to not using adapter as good lenses become available.