The wideangle question rears its ugly head again! Yesterday, I cycled the few miles to the neighbouring mediaeval town of Esslingen for yet another Nikon v Fuji test but this time, I also wanted to see if an UWA is really needed for these kinds of shots. To be honest, with virtually all the shots I've taken around the 14-17mm mark the ones I like are those where I have tried to use the focal length in a creative way, rather than simply trying to include all of, say, an impossibly high church spire with surrounding buildings sloping inwards at about 30 degrees which tends to look daft. For travel landscapes, I tend not to really need it and it would be much easier to travel with only the 24-70 + 70-300.
Logic along these lines would dictate that "in for a penny, in for a pound", one should go for the widest portable and (somewhat once the price drops a bit) affordable option which for the Z is the 14-30. On the other hand, with my Nikon D700, I used the 17-35 f2.8 + 50mm f1.8 + (old and mediocre edges) 70-300mm, hence my interest in Stephen's Tamron.
Below is the main square in Esslingen in nasty contre jour lighting with the oldest half-timbered house in Germany just out of picture. The 24-70 did admirably (but my X-Pro2 also did better than expected if not quite as crisp).
View attachment 237463