Which of those options offers a high quality weather-sealed compact mid-range zoom with built-in macro? None. There are substitutes, perhaps better for some applications, but no one-lens equivalents.
Good reasoning but does being a unique one-lens option provide that sort of value? One could think of it in the opposite direction too; it is only f/4, not a true macro at 0.7, and neither much (if) better than the competition optically.
After all, I guess we all agree, it is worth for those who purchase and not worth for those who do not. If the market consists mainly of the latter, the price goes down and vice versa... This lens might become the kit lens replacing the 24-105 eventually which would be unfortunate for us who like the 24-105 and would like to see a v2 of it. I recall even calls for a f/2.8 version of it...
I've been around some other photogs in my area, and not a single one of them had any interest in this lens. It's not a bad product, its just bad @ 1499$. If it was around 649$, along with a 70-200 f/4, then yes it would make sense.
At its current price, a 100L + 24-105L is what you could get used for the same monies.
There is no ideal one lens solution, afterall that's the whole point of SLRs.