Good choice at the price.

If one needs an f/2.8 and filter-capabilities for FX, the Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 remains an excellent choice ... and really, the only choice if you want a Nikon made ultra-wide angle f/2.8 FX zoom lens that is filter-compatible

While that is the case with every other FX lens as well, in many cases there is no good DX substitute and the FX lens remains the best choice.

If you are a landscape shooter and are thinking about the 17-35, the 16-35 is the better choice

I do notice my camera bag gets tighter, and things are squeezed around when I pack this lens, I wish they made it little shorter.-Shouldn't buy is for a DX sensor, too big and bulky, and the12-24mm DX lens is much better choice for crop sensor cameras, and you can actually use the 12-24 DX on full frame camera as 18-24mm (it will vignette under 17mm on a full frame).Who should buy this:-The lens is very sharp and the price is right, and I believe Nikon nailed it with this one, this is an affordable semi-pro ultra wide angle VR lens, it has a lot to offer in terms of sharpens and zoom range and build quality

This lens proved to be a good choice for my D700 because of several reasons

Of course the 16-35 is much bigger and heavy than the 20, then, it is not the best choice for a hard and fast ride when there is not enough time to stop to take pictures

If you shoot architecture, the 14-24 would probably be the better choice since it has better corners and less distortion from 14-19mm

For event photography, the 17-35 may remain the better choice.

On a tighter budget, I would suggest that a DX body with any of the better DX wide zooms would be the better choice.