Good discussion all. I appreciate your comments!
Regarding usage of this lens, I find it odd that the 24L seems relegated to environmental portraiture, full body portraits, etc. Would one not use this for landscape work? I appreciate that the tilt-shift is preferred for some things (architecture comes to mind) but is the 24L II an underperformer when you stop it down for landscape work? Is there another lens that is preferred to this (on FF) for landscape work? Surely not the 16-35... (-10 if you say the Nikon 14-24.)
I would never think to ask this for another ultra-wide aperture lens, like the 50L or 85L. I honestly see those lenses as some form of troublesome prima donnas; they seem to be used principally for what they can do that other lenses cant -- shooting between F/1.2 and perhaps F/2.
But a 24mm prime strikes me as (a) sharper than zooms (the impressive new 24-70 II notwithstanding) and (b) an ideal FOV for landscape work.
So talk me down -- if you're at a great natural vista, why wouldn't you use this lens?
I ask because I am considering a move away from zooms and selling my 24-70 F/2.8L Mk I for this 24 prime and likely the 50 F/2 IS that should come out this year. Understand that I would use the 24 prime for the reasons discussed on this thread, but if it's not excellent for landscape work, I might switch to the 35L and the new 50 instead.
The 24L is not sharper than the new 24-70L II lens. The zoom is sharper. Only advantage is the prime can go wider, nothing else.