Zeiss 16-35 f/2.8 SSM (absolutely vital for a mount)
Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 SSM (absolutely vital for a mount)
Sony 70-300G f/4.5-5.6 SSM (vital for the mount)
Sony 70-400G f/4-5.6 SSM (fills a vital hole in the mount)
Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 (absolutely vital for a mount)
Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 (an absolute gem and has no parallel in any other mount)
Zeiss 24mm f/2 SSM (great addition to the mount)
Zeiss 16-80 f/3.5-4.5 (excellent APS-C all-purpose lens)
Sony 16-105 (great APS-C lens)
....and a bunch of other APS-C lenses that I am not listing here.
Flashes like the F58AM, F42AM, F20AM and so on....
Several bodies, including Full-frame bodies with built-in body-based stabilizaition.
The gaps are being filled but the zooms are absolutely mandatory for a mount, and not an option at all. The primes are being added into the holes, as we speak, if we discount the already available primes like the 16mm fisheye, the 35mm f/1.4G, the 50mm f/1.4G, the 50mm f/2.8 Macro, the 100mm f/2.8 Macro, the 135mm STF, the 300mm f/2.8G SSM etc., in addition to zooms like the 70-200 f/2.8 G SSM (I hope this zoom gets replaced with a Zeiss 70-200 f/2.8 SSM).
I have no problems with the Sony 50mm f/2.8 Macro of mine, which I primarily use as a walk-around "normal" on my A900. Great Full-frame 1:1 Macro lens. The 100mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro is roughly comparable to all other such macros in the market....with probably the latest Canon 100mm f/2.8 having an edge since it is newer. Sony currently lacks a 200mm 1:1 Macro and there was a rumor about a 200mm f/3.5 Zeiss Macro lens but that was a while back (don't know if that will happen).There is also no high quality 1:1 macro in the line up. The Sony 100 while not bad is not a top performer.
I personally would like to have the following FF lenses: 35mm f/2 SSM (maybe keep the existing 35mm f/1.4G), 50mm f/1.4 SSM (replacement for the existing 50mm f/1.4), an ultra-wide prime (say a 14mm or 16mm or even an 18mm) and my requirements should be fully met, since I already have the other lenses like the 24-70ZA, 85ZA and 135ZA etc.
Even though a high-quality wide, ultra-wide etc are great lenses, I personally find that in some cases, I am able to shoot an entire event with a zoom like the Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 coupled with the Zeiss 85mm and the Zeiss 135mm on the A900. The 24-70 f/2.8 in particular, covers a LOT of ground, all the way from a true wide angle of 24mm that borders ultra-wide, and onto wide-normal (35mm) where all the typical wide-angle distortions are curbed for the most part and then onto "normal" (around 50mm) and then onto low-tele (70mm)....while providing constant f/2.8 through that range. But if you intend to use the 24-70 f/2.8 to shoot just landscapes or cityscapes etc., then I agree that a couple of, small, high quality primes will be the better bet here....horses for courses as they say.