In my experience, you gotta go with the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DG DN Art for that UNREAL micro-contrast on high-res bodies!

* Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG DN Art - Best for flare resistance.
* Panasonic Lumix S 24mm f/1.8 - Perfect if weight is an issue.

But honestly, the Art glass is worth the extra weight if youre doing professional prints... its just SO sharp. Cheers!

Seconding the recommendation above! Honestly, Sigma Art glass is beastly. But if ur hiking and wanna save cash, these i-Series primes are legit:

* Sigma 24mm f/2 DG DN Contemporary – Usually $639. Sharpness is killer.
* Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN Contemporary – About $639.

Ive used these for two years, no complaints and they work well for large prints. Lowkey the best value right now. gl

Summarizing the thread so far, the consensus seems to be a choice between the raw resolving power of the Sigma Art line and the practical portability of the f/1.8-f/2 options. From a technical market perspective, if you are truly pushing 60MP+ sensors for professional prints, you have to consider the high-end glass that prioritizes apochromatic correction. If you really want to maximize that high-res body, the Leica APO-Summicron-SL 35mm f/2 ASPH. is basically the industry benchmark. Unlike the standard primes discussed, its APO design virtually eliminates longitudinal chromatic aberration, which is CRITICAL for crisp details in high-contrast landscape shots. It is heavy and expensive, but the micro-contrast is objectively in a different league. Alternatively, consider the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 DG DN Art. While earlier posts mentioned the f/1.4, the f/1.2 is Sigma’s real flagship for resolution. It’s a beast to hike with, but the MTF charts show it has superior corner-to-corner sharpness compared to the lighter i-series. Honestly, if the goal is maximum optical quality for large-scale work, these are the top-tier choices you should be looking at. Just gotta decide if your back can handle it haha!

In my experience, optical quality basically plateaus at a certain point. i switched to a value-focused setup and honestly, the micro-contrast is indistinguishable in my pro prints. saved money and my back!

Tbh, while everyone is debating the glass, we really need to talk about the quality control and calibration side of things if you are printing large. With a high-resolution L-mount body, you are basically magnifying every tiny manufacturing tolerance issue. Are you planning on doing your own decentering tests before your return windows close? I have seen too many pros drop thousands on glass only to realize one corner is soft because of a slight tilt in the element or a mount that is a fraction of a millimeter off. If you are doing your own quality assurance in the field, you need to be very methodical. My warning here is to avoid the trap of thinking a more expensive lens is immune to copy variation. Even the top-tier stuff can arrive with issues that only show up when you are shooting at infinity. Before giving a final verdict, I need to know a bit more about your support workflow. What kind of tripod and head system are you using to ensure that sensor plane stays perfectly parallel? Even the best glass is useless if your setup allows for the slightest bit of mechanical flex during a long exposure.

• Do you test for field curvature specifically?
• Are you using a geared head for precise alignment? Knowing this will help narrow down which primes actually hold up under real-world scrutiny.

Saved for later, ty!