Yes. Take the money factor out of it and I would have no problem either. Take the UWA dilemma of mine right now. I know what I want in an UWA: the 16-35/4 IS. Problem is that I don't have a body to make it UWA and don't have the money to make that upgrade. Seeing how I am paying over $35K a year in child care for three kids, the cash flow isn't going to be fabulous for a while.
So if I look at the crop alternatives I am looking at the 10-18, 10-22 and 11-16. The 10-22 has the range but not the IS or equivalent aperture. The 10-18 has the IS but not the range or aperture. The 11-16 has the aperture but not the IS or the range. It's like its a cruel joke. Plus the 11-16 has arguably the most archaic focusing system out there.
I had an UWA dilemma, too. I have the old all rounder 24-105mm on my 6D, but 24mm is not wide. The 16-35mm f/4L would be great, but the price and is 16mm wide enough?
I let the 70-200mm to go, used it very little and got Sigma 12-24mm and now I have a UWA to use when I need it. Not perfect, but very usable.
If I need telephoto, I'll pick the EF-M 55-200mm to my M body, very light pack to carry on.