Great photos, as a Canon shooter looking at making the jump how have you found the 17-35mm vs the Canon 16-35mm, currently have the 5D and 16-35mm II but if I changed would I got for a 14-24mm to go with the 24-70 or go with the 17-35mm. 14-24mm gets great reviews but I often use Lee filters for landscapes which causes a problem wrt to the 14-24mm.
I guessing that your conclusions are based upon comparing JPEGs. This only means that you are comparing the default (or user adjusted) in camera settings. Others have come to another conclusions when using RAW files. I have found that any RAW file can be adjusted to look "better" thank the JPEG (made from the RAW data)-the only question is how much better?
Jolahern - i find that the Nikkor 17-35 renders better details than Canon's 16-35 which I have only used the Mark 1. Another word is the Nikkor is a lot sharper. It's very obvious when you view the image at 100%... i've never used the 14-24 but I got to be using filters for landscapes therefore I bought the 17-35
You really should try the 14-24... if you think the 17-35 is great, the 14-24 may well blow your mind. There are filter holders that have been created for it.
Not to mention, the shots you've already got are fantastic - imagine how they'd like with the best Nikon lens ever made (arguably).
