I'm going to Iceland in like two weeks and I'm totally panicking because my current kit just doesn't have the width I need for those massive vistas and I haven't bought a wide-angle lens yet. I've been looking at Sigma specifically because Sony native glass is just way too expensive for my bank account right now and I've heard the Sigma Art line is basically legendary but man they are heavy. I spent all night yesterday reading reviews on DPReview and watching those long YouTube comparison videos but honestly it just made me more confused than when I started.

Some guys say the 14-24mm f2.8 DG DN Art is the absolute king for sharpness and image quality but then I see people complaining about the bulbous front element and how you can't easily use screw-on filters which is a huge deal for me because I do a lot of long exposure stuff with ND filters for waterfalls and stuff. Then there's the 16-28mm f2.8 Contemporary which is way lighter and cheaper and takes normal filters but I'm worried it won't hold up if I want to do some big 24x36 prints for my living room wall later on. Is the quality jump to the Art series really worth the extra weight when I'm gonna be hiking like 10 miles a day over volcanic rock?

I'm also seeing some talk about the 20mm prime but I feel like I might miss the flexibility of a zoom when I'm standing on a cliff edge and can't exactly zoom with my feet without falling into the ocean lol. My budget is capped at about 1300 bucks and I need to pull the trigger by Friday so it gets here in time for me to test it out before my flight leaves. Does anyone here actually use these for professional-level landscape work on a regular basis? I really need to know if the 14-24 is manageable for hiking or if I should just stick to the 16-28 and hope the sharpness is good enough...