I'm a fan of the 28-300, the 24-200 and 28-400 lenses in F/Z for the versatility. For travel with all the random shot opportunities that come up it's really nice having a Swiss army knife of a lens on the camera. I think any of them are plenty sharp enough for anything.
Walking around my work building which has walls covered in landscape photo's, all about 20x30 in size I can't help but notice the prints just reduce any sharpness gains that a super expensive lens/ super sharp would have had and always makes me wonder why obsess over small differences in lens sharpness if the output medium is most likely going to destroy it anyway, be it 8mp and under screens or print that always seems to be less resolution when I see them than you would at 1:1 on a monitor.
Composition and creatively is always greater than differences in lens sharpness for me. Some of my absolute favorite shots have been taken on $100, $150 lenses on OM cameras that happened to be with me because they're effortless to carry around. I just had a shot of a Joshua Tree yesterday on a $225 TT Artisan 50mm 1.4 that I really like, that lens is more than enough for sharpness.
That's how I see the 28-300, it's ready for whatever, same with the 28-400, either a D850 or Z8 is going to do really well and honestly if you side by side all the images on 4k or less screens or print I highly doubt anyone would see the difference, same for the 24-120z.
So I would pick the one that has the focal length you're after and not look back, it'll work great on whatever you shoot, composition and creativity will always blow away any small differences in lens sharpness for the impact of a good photo and rarely detract enough from one for anyone to notice. We live in a time where there really are very few if any bad lenses on the market.