it´s the light, stupid!

I do not want to insult anyone, but with the introduction of “Art” Lenses from Sigma or the “Otus” line from Zeiss and the praise for this lenses in many online sources form Dpreview to "diglloyd" you get the feeling that this is the way you have to go if you want to make really good fine art landscape photos. But this  nice picture at diglloyd´s blog with the praise of the Otus lens wide open at f1,4 shows for me the misconcept about this: Why should anyone make a landscape photo at f1,4? The foreground will be unsharp, no matter what, thats optical laws. And in my opinion landscape pictures live from sharpness,  from depth of field.
This article, called “The stitched counter revolution to Bokeh” is about what I want to express.

If the light is not right, no magic lens will save your day! Do you really think that a picture like “Seljalandfoss at dawn” will have been better if it was shot with a Art or Otus lens?

Nikon D3x and 16-35 f4 zoom lens @ 17 mm F9 and 0,5 sec, Carbon Fiber Tripod

The best lens paired with the best high resolution camera might get you a bigger print, so if you make exhibitions with pictures many feet wide, this might be the way to go for you. But the best pictures printed big I know are from this couple: http://popphackner.com
Guess what, they make their pictures with Toyo field cameras and 4x5 sheet film. Certainly also a kind of high resolution approach.
For me landscape photography is about the magic of light and the truth is, any contemporary lens stopped down a bit will get you good results. In truth it is more about the right moment and proper technique.
Do not fret about buying new gear, go out and shoot!