The lenses you listed are not sharper than the ones I listed, and in many cases aren't even the right focal length.
They also typically have lousy to non-existent sunstars, particularly important when photographing landscapes at wide angles.
However, you are quite correct that they are all huge and mostly enormously expensive.
So, you can pay a lot of money for enormous dSLR lenses and more or less match the IQ of less expensive, reasonably sized Sony glass.
The Laowa 15 has soft corners/edges even when stopped down. Any of the other 14-15mm options mentioned beats it optically, and the zooms are more versatile as well.
Regarding sunstars, the Loxia 21mm isn't exactly great for that. It gives 10-pointed stars whose rays appear spread too far apart (for landscape, and especially cityscape photography, that's the major failing of most lenses with an even number of aperture blades). The 14- and 18-pointed stars generated by the Canon and Sony zooms with 7 or 9 blades are much better.
I don't think anything quite touches the Otus lenses for sharpness in their comparable focal length ranges (the only ones that come close being some of the Sigma Art lenses).
I don't see the point of the Batis 135 f/2.8 at all. It doesn't cost much less than the 70-200 f/2.8 zooms and is no faster, and is much more expensive than the much faster and equally sharp (if not a bit sharper) Sigma 135mm f/1.8. Essentially, you're paying a huge premium for small size, without any real performance benefit.
And what you're getting in most of these cases isn't just size - it's versatility. The Canon 16-35 f/2.8 and the Sony 12-24 f/4 and 16-35 f/2.8 can each cover for a number of primes. What's easier to carry - a single 12-24 or 16-35, or both the 15mm Laowa and the 21mm Loxia?
