Actually, only a few of the f/64 group were landscape photographers. Edward Weston shot landscapes, but is better known for his nudes and for his still life images. And, even his landscapes weren't really about the land. Imogen Cunningham is best known for portraits and nudes. Other members are less well known, but are not known primarily as landscape photographers. If you include Peter Stackpole and Dorothea Lange (Stackpole claimed to be a member, but that is in dispute and Lange claimed not to be a member, but that is also in dispute) you have additional examples that were not landscape photographers.
The defining feature of f/64 was the belief in straight photography. They chose f/64 because they felt in best approximated the way the human eye sees -- everything in focus. It was largely a rejection of the romanticism and soft focus of the late 19th, early 20th century and has its roots in Paul Strand's "White Fence." It might also be summarized as an effort to have photography stand on its own as a unique medium, instead of as a imitation of painting, which is what the romanticists were accused of.
Today's fondness for bokeh hearkens back to those 19th century images. Nothing wrong with it, but as I said, it would have Adams and the rest of the f/64 school rolling in their graves because it is exactly what they rejected. That doesn't mean they were right. But, I'm personally more of the straight photography school, so the extreme wide aperture lenses have little appeal to me personally. Hence, my point that if I had the money, I'd rather have a big white.
The means to acquire are a whole other story. Ain’t gonna happen. 
