I came pretty close to getting the 16-35 for my A7 but wound up getting the 11-22 for my funky old Canon EOS M instead. It won out because it's tiny, has a very good reputation for performance and is only $399. (It certainly helps to have the EOS M body already handy, though a quick eBay search turned up a body-lens kit that still comes in at less than many other lenses of this type.) I put the new acquisition through its paces in the Eastern Sierra and Death Valley. For my application, this pairing was a good compliment to the A7. It was nice to be able to deploy ultra-wide without having to change lenses. A second A7 body with a big zoom might have been a bit silly for hiking but the 11-22 on the EOS M body felt just right - almost like just another lens. I did bitterly miss having a good EVF at times. (The newer EOS M3 body does offer that option.) In terms of IQ, the full-frame captures with the Zeiss T* primes do have a certain sheen - particularly when you're pixel peeping. There were a few scenes where I might have liked to have had the greater character nuances of the Sony/Zeiss zoom - particularly for sun star rendering. The smaller system did hold its own, though - it gave me 12 out of the 27 share-worthy frames from the trip. I did a few bracketed shots in case Canon's notoriously lesser dynamic range came up wanting, but never wound up having to resort to HDR. Shooting both systems RAW and using custom calibrated color profiles, they mingle pretty well. If I wind up trying to pay a mortgage with ultra-wide landscape shots, I'll surely upgrade to some of the full-frame solutions but this was a great way to be dipping my toe in the ultra-wide waters. (It takes some getting used to and like anything else is easy to overdo at first.) I scoffed when the EOS M system first came out but I now find I can't quite get away from it. For exceptional compactness and value - with IQ just one notch below full-frame (well into overkill for my real needs), this system has a unique appeal.