A few years ago, I was considering a similar decision. My choices were the 24 TS/E MkII, the 24 f/1.4 MkII and the Zeiss 21 Distagon. At the apertures I would be using them (for landscapes), the sharpness was very similar. The only caveat would have been, that the TS/E would have allowed a wider aperture at similar sharpness, due to the change in the focal plane, allowing faster shutterspeeds in certain conditions. In the end though, it wasn't traditional landscape photography that made the decision for me. About 15 months ago, I was going on my first expedition to chase the Northern Lights and I needed the ability to use a wider aperture to keep the exposure time and ISO as low as possible, so the choice was the 24 f/1.4 MkII. Had it not been for that, I would have been very tempted by the TS/E, but also the "look" of the images from the Zeiss also appealed. If you definitely don't want to learn about tilt and shift, then it is a straight choice between the Zeiss and the 24 f/1.4 and there isn't really a wrong answer, as they are both well-regarded lenses. It then boils down to whether or not you want the Zeiss "look" or the ability to autofocus and whether you would prefer something a little wider than 24mm.
Btw, have a look through this thread, there are a number of landscapes posted of varying degrees of quality.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=304.0
Show Posts
