The 16-35 is soft at the edges of the frame, even at f8 at all focal lengths, and more so on the right side of the frame. It is probably decentered a bit. My FE mount 16-35 F4 on my A7RII gives much better image quality with sharpness in the edges and corners.
The 24-70 is better and sharpens up nicely by F8 across most of the frame. But it seems to really struggle at 70mm, even by f8 it's only sharp in the center. There is nothing about the lens that wows me or stands out, thats why I said it's kinda meh.
Both of these zooms provide fast autofocus and the images from the lenses have nice contrast and color.
When you compare these lenses to the Sigma 35mm 1.4 art prime, or any of the nicer primes for the A7 series cameras, like the Zeiss Loxia, and Batis lenses it becomes really hard to get exited about what these zooms produce. I think if I got this camera I'd have to check out the Tamron 15-30mm zoom that is supposed to be awesome. (Cant believe I'd ever consider a Tamron lens, LOL!) But there are no other wide angle options for this camera and I do a lot of landscape work so it's of great importance to me.
BTW the Sony/Zeiss 135mm f1.8 lens is still a rock star. Super fast autofocus, even though it uses the older autofocus drive system and it's freaking sharp even wide open at 1.8.
The autofocus in general is the best I have ever used. Snappy and accurate. I'll be shooting some Collegiate spring football stuff on Friday and plan to really use the autofocus then. But yesterday I had my 10 year old son run straight at me full speed and the auto focus nailed 10 of the twelve frames in perfect focus. The other two shots would still be usable but the focus was a little behind the face. Keep in mind this was with the 135mm lens at f2 so super shallow depth of field.
A possible setup might be the Tamron 15-30 zoom for Landscape/Architecture, Sigma 35 and 50mm art lenses, the Sony Zeiss 85mm f 1.4 and finally the Sony/Zeiss 135mm f1.8. This system could work for my uses.