I have used the 90mm, great lens, but we're talking about the 24mm.
I have in fact used a 24 T/S, it was the new Nikon one. I rented it for a weekend just for kicks and to compare to my 24 f/1.4G. Great lens, but I prefer the rendering of the 24 f/1.4 because I shoot people and I want isolation. 24mm and f/3.5 doesn't really give you that unless you're on top of someone.
I never blithely said that 35mm was unsuitable for landscapes. I said 35mm is a PITHY format. Pithy means brief, terse, concise. Essentially It covers alot in very little. That is NOT a bad thing, and I never stated that it was.
Congrats that you are/were in 35mm professional practice for a long time. I work professionally analog too, whoop-dee-do.
About technical balance, if you're going to spend the time to use t/s movements, at least use the format designed for it. I just said that the 24/TS in some ways may be a lesser tool to large format for landscape/architectural. You get more movement on (lets just say) a 4x5, and your negative is over 15x larger. If you're going to spend the time to use a t/s, why rob yourself of detail and tonality with 35mm? 35mm is designed for speed and portability, everyone knows this. So my question is why weigh it down with movements trying to emulate what you get with a 4x5?
It's all a difference in personal perspective, dude.