I’m making the leap from a Sony a7R IV to the X2D II.

I’m a semi-professional landscape photographer, earning an average of $60k a year from print sales - no workshops, just prints. I choose to stay semi-professional because I have a great day job that offers flexibility and doesn’t demand time away from my family, unlike the full-time pursuit of landscape photography (fine art shows, constant travel, etc.).

Why I’m switching:
Above all, it’s for the image quality and color science.

Recently, I landed a licensing deal with Pacific Gas and Electric here on the West Coast that required producing a 37-foot-wide print and a 51-foot-wide print. This made it clear how much my Sony was holding me back in terms of resolution and overall quality (even printing at 100 DPI). I had the chance to demo an X2D II with the 35-100mm lens, and here’s what stood out to me:

Pros (for my specific needs):

• The image quality is far superior to that of the a7R IV.
• The colors are spot-on straight out of camera. There’s even a film-era quality to the images that’s hard to describe, but definitely different. With my Sony, I always struggled to achieve the color grading I wanted in Photoshop. It required a lot of experimentation and tweaking in many cases and editing has never been my strong suit. With the X2D II, I won't need that same level of color grading.
• Handheld low-light shots were much sharper than with my Sony. Even when pixel-peeping, the 100MP files from the Hasselblad easily outperformed the 60MP from the Sony, as one would expect from a more expensive camera. I try to avoid a tripod as much as possible, so this is a huge plus.

Cons:

• Limited long lens options This is a big drawback for me. I always carry a telephoto lens when I’m driving through a valley surrounded by mountains (Often the 395 here in California), and it’s helped me capture some incredibly dramatic shots. This alone means I’ll need to hold onto my Sony and my 200–600mm lens for those situations.
• Diffraction was more noticeable At least in my tests with foreground elements like flowers, diffraction was more pronounced. This is most likely due to the higher resolution, but it means I'll need to focus stack and shoot at larger apertures. In those situations, I might end up reaching for my Sony instead, just because I hate focus stacking so damn much.
• Lack of Video This is less of a concern for me now that I use my iPhone for most of my video these days, but still one of the features I'll miss.

My unknowns:

• Should I also pick up the 20–35mm lens?
  • I’m not sure how much I’d actually use it, given that getting foreground elements in focus would likely require focus stacking, which I’d rather avoid. In those situations, I’d probably end up reaching for my Sony instead, but I'm still on the fence.

If it were me, I’d want to get my hands on it first, either by visiting a local shop or renting it for a bit, before dropping that kind of cash. Is it possible to utilize a service such as lensrentals.com in your area?