Sony has jack for glass, that's why I'm still waiting. Oh sure, if you actually want the usual kit zooms or like one or two Sigma primes, you're set. But they are charging a fortune for their wideangle zoom, their 50mm OSS is nice but the price is way more than rivals' stuff, and OSS does not help you if the subject is moving around (like a kid running around) anyway. The Zeiss 24 is way the hell overpriced. The big 18-200 kinda defeats the purpose of going small and presents balancing issues with some NEX bodies. If you are willing to live with that, fine, but I looked at their lens roadmap and they will have no longer-focal-length zooms, bright telephoto, or bright midrange zooms, which is completely f***ing unacceptable to me. Don't give us a freaking macro when we can get macro filters or extension tubes. Give us a NEX 17-50mm OSS f/2.8, a NEX 70-200mm OSS f/2.8, etc. Since those kinds of lenses are not on the roadmap, they have lost customers like me.
I'm sticking to my existing Nikon glass in the meantime and will probably get a RX100 or Nikon V1 to supplement it.
CaNikon glass is way the hell more affordable than Sony's stuff, btw. Nikon examples: 35mm DX f/1.8 is sharp and cheap, at less than $180 used. Tamron 17-50 can be had for under $300 used; if you need stabilization then I can vouch for the Sigma 17-50 OS which is a great lens. You can get 18-300/70-300 lenses or similar from several lensmakers. You can get 70-200 f/2.8 glass as well. A good but cheap wideangle like the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 costs way less than the Sony NEX wideangle and you basically give up a little bit of aperture, or none at all if you shoot at f/8 or smaller (which most people do with their wideangles). There still is no NEX equivalent of the Tamron 11-18 f/2.8 DX. Etc.