The 17-35 is only good on a full frame camera, on a DX crop it's not wide angle anymore.
I wouldn't really call 26mm wide angle, and I'm pretty sure the OP doesn't either.
With all due respect, the OP had asked, "In your experience, what would you consider to be
the finest wide angle Nikkor for landscape photography that you have ever used?" There was no reference to full-frame nor to DX. So, I'm not sure what your point is.
Irregardless, full-frame or DX is a moot point.
The 12-24/4DX at 12mm (for landscape) suffers from light fall-off (corners, but not that annoying), CA and image is less sharp unless stopped down to f/8 or smaller. Barrel distortion, however, is surprisingly less than that of the 17-35/2.8 at 17mm.
The 17-35/2.8 is very resistant to flare and ghosting compared to 17-55/2.8DX - which is important when doing landscape especially on a strong backlit scenes. Optically, you'd be hard pressed to notice differences between the two. The 17-35/2.8, however, can be mounted on both full-frame
AND DX bodies! :smile: :wink:
