The 24 f1.4 MkII is a superb lens, but it has zero functional advantage over the 24-70 f2,8 IS as a landscape shooting lens, zero, none, nada. For somebody wanting a dedicated 24mm LANDSCAPE lens suggesting the f1.4 is pretty terrible advice, even worse considering Canon actually make probably the best 24 mm LANDSCAPE orientated lens in the world, the 24 TS-E MkII.
P.S. I am no troll, and I don't suffer fools or their "advice" easily.
To say the 24mm f/1.4 is appalling could be seen as a trollish comment. Since it is one of Canon's best primes and you made the comment on a Canon forum.
Really it is money and versatility;
The 24-70 II is a great lens that usually cost close to 2K. If you are going to spend that much on a landscape lens and you want the best then IMO the 24mm TSE is the choice no doubt, can the OP afford that one?
The 24mm F/1.4 cost less, and if you are not using the TS functions the differences between these tow lenses IQ isn't that great.
I have owned the 24-70mm II over a year now, if I want a wide lens for a landscape shot I put the primes on. Honestly
I read all the reviews, debates, opinions and discussions but in the end I make the final choice by the final results.
Comments that this aspect doesn't matter or that doesn't matter, or you can correct this or that in PP a bit useless. Unless you know that the person you are addressing takes the same type of shots and PP just like you do you really do not know if those aspects matter or not to that person.