Is the Nikon Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S worth the extra cash over the 17-28mm f/2.8, or am I just overthinking this? I have a big trip to the Canadian Rockies coming up in exactly three weeks and I am honestly starting to panic a bit because my current setup just isnt cutting it for the wide-angle shots I want. Im shooting on a Z7ii and I really need something sharp that can handle harsh mountain light without turning into a mess.

Im kind of torn between the 14-24mm, the 17-28mm, and maybe even the 20mm f/1.8 prime. I have about 2500 bucks to burn, but obviously saving money for the actual trip would be great. I love the idea of the 14-24mm quality, but its heavy and my bag is already getting way too full. The 17-28mm seems lighter and more manageable for hiking, but is the image quality going to be noticeably worse when I print these out huge? I dont want to get out there and realize I made the wrong choice, especially since I cant really return it once I land in Calgary. What would you guys pick if you were in my shoes and needed something reliable for professional landscape work?