Mon 18-Feb-13 01:05 AM | edited Mon 18-Feb-13 03:47 AM by JPJ
If you are speaking specifically about landscapes then the only time VR would be an advantage is if you are handholding the shot - which may occur as frequently as you let it. Do you carry a tripod around with you whenever you are out shooting landscapes? If the answer is yes, then VR is no advantage.
I recently had to choose a wide angle for FX and choose the 16-35 VR over the other options, including the 14-24, which is a great lens. One reason is I often use filters, especially when shooting landscapes. The 14-24 can't use screw in filters and needs an expensive holder to use any type of Grads. I already had a filter system that would work with the 16-35.
Further, the 16-35 is a great versatile lens, capable of shooting landscapes, street photography or indoor architecture, etc. As the VR buys many people 2-3 stops it is actually better at keeping your ISO down for handheld shots then having a 2.8 lens without VR (which only buys you a stop over the 16-35 minimum 4.0 aperture).
I also prefer to keep the weight and bulk of my kit down and the 14-24 is massive.
If I just shot landscapes below 24mm I would consider a wide prime (around 20mm). Primes are smaller, lighter and generally sharper, though at f/8 to f/11 one would be hard pressed to find a real advantage outside of the extreme corners. Most landscape shots are easily framed by moving around and nothing is generally changing immediately. I, however have more versatile shooting needs for a wide angle, thus the zoom which is great for architecture and even just street shooting.