Calling the 12-24DX a dog is quite the typing mistake for some folks around here, haha... It's a beloved Nikkor, afterall. ;)

Anyway, here's the word on the street on these lenses:

17-55 has better contrast throughout the range wide open, especially at the corners
17-55 is sharper wide open throughout the range, especially at the wide angle end.
17-35 has less distortion at wide angle.
17-35 will be sharper stopped down for absolute sharpness.

Bjorn Roslett, who basically owns or has access to more Nikkor lenses than most people will even read about, gives the 17-55DX two thumbs up on his Nikon D2X and D2H over the 17-35. It's his "main bread and butter lens."

His review:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AFS17-55G

Goodluck in your decision

Todd

PS:

Here's my review:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=11869943


piggyk wrote:
> Sorry typing mistake, should be
>
> Not that many people talked about the full frame lens of 17-35
> here. Who can give me some comparison?
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> budmci wrote:
> > Thought the 12-24 was supposed to be a fine lens???? No experience
> > with the 17-35.
> >
> >
> > piggyk wrote:
> > > I'm looking for a pro wide glass to replace my kit lens. I read
> > > many reports here that the 17-55 DX is great against the 12-24 DX
> > > that is described as dog :>
> > >
> > > Not that many people talked about the full frame lens of 17-35
> > > here. Who can give me some comparation?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > --
> > > piGGyk
> >
>
> --
> piGGyk