I would not describe it as the ultimate dream in WA, but it certainly is among the very best. There are other lenses in it's class, like the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 or Zeiss 25mm f/2. Each of these has some unique rendering. Of course if one is looking for subject isolation at wide angles, then the 24/1.4 is indeed the best ticket by far.
I somewhat disagree with all the other comments here that the only reason to get this lens is to shoot it at f/1.4 - f/2. When used stopped down, i.e. f/5.6 to f/8, this lens is still superb and beats many other including the 14-24 or 24-70. I have compared them, shooting the same scene with them. When one looks at resolution or sharpness, then indeed there is not much difference between these top lenses at f/8. But I'm curious why many folks don't consider other parts of the lens performance. Sharpness is only one, and sometimes not even the most important one. Others are flare, distortion or lateral CA, each of which don't change much or at all when stopping down. Case in point: For a scene with some backlighting, not even directly into a light source, just a bright sky, the 14-24 delivered a washed out image due to flare, while the 24/1.4 still have a contrasty picture with saturated colors. Another case: the 24-70 has pretty strong distortion at 24mm, while the 24/1.4 is almost distortion free. This can ve important for architectural shots.
So I would certainly not get this lens and plan to shoot it only at f/8, but for a mixed use, some landscapes and architecture stopped down, and some environmental portraits wide open, it can make perfect sense. In fact, in this regard it is one of the most versatile lenses around.