I don't think folks are necessarily against the lens. It's no doubt a fantastic lens. I think the issue is whether or not they would use it as often as any of the other lenses.
Filters seem to be of some concern but not a deal breaker. However, some feel that having a 24-70 and a 70-200 (both 2.8's) would give a fairly good range of glass to have as 24 would meet the wide angle requirement. (FX, of course)
Would folks like to have all three? Absolutely but, given a choice and allocating only a certain amount of funds towards lenses, it comes down to individual choice...
I really love this lens but it isn't for everyone that's for sure, I have all 3 of the trinity, 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200/2.8 and the one I used the least is the one I love the best when I need it and that's the 14-24/2.8
I'm considering both of these lenses. I do mostly landscapes/scenics and I understand the pro cons are
pro 17-35 -lighter, can use filters, less flare, nice range on D700
pro 14-24 -superb optics. more WA
SInce I hike and shoot the naked 14-24 concerns me as does the weight. So just how much better is the optics of the 14-24? The more WA seem minimal ie 104 vs 114 degrees.