I have used the 90mm, great lens, but we're talking about the 24mm.
And we are talking about the specifics of a 35mm lens, not 4x5 and its perceived /actual merits over whatever else!
Nowhere in the OP was their any open gate for you to barge in with unserviceable comparisons about 4x5 vs 35mm.

Addressing another point in the OP:
Canon is different! Yes, Canon's mirror lockup (along with a few other functions) is a cause celebré, but at least it works and works well on the workhorse 1N, and variants. F12-1-0 is all that you need to remember to activate it or not, but I agree, a lever would be better, but ever since it first came out, the 1N et al was going to be a different kettle of beans. Generally MUP is only really useful for very long tele lenses or precise macro (on that point, macro is something later EOS pro-level bodies achieve with greater panaché).

Be it noted that very interesting (and challenging!) results can be achieved by aligning both T and S on the same plane. Inge Johnsson, TX, a researcher who made several ground breaking investigations into the TS-E, explored this in detail around 1997 (along with visual-vs-mathematical application of tilt).

You might want to experiment with the Mk I TS-E 24 alongside the Mk II TS-E 24. There are some big differences, including weight, ease of handling, precision of focus and operability of T-S movements (rather oddball on the Mk II lens, but by the same token, in need of some design improvement on the Mk I optic!). I think using both side by side would be more valuable than assumptions.