I am sorry to be the exception to all the above. I never warmed to my 17-35 though I used it a lot and while I had it, it was my main landscape lens (on D700). I sold it recently, replacing it with an 18mm Zeiss prime, and I don't miss it for a moment.
It might have been poor technique on my part, or just plain imagination, but I always felt that the images I used to get with on DX with the 12-24 on D2x or D300 were more pleasing and sharper than anything I was getting with the 17-35 on the D700. And that is not how things are supposed to be.
I also felt that the lens was too heavy and out-of-balance when used on the D700. This is probably not the case with the bigger, heavier D3.
It's not your technique, Dave - with a much larger area to cover on FX the edge performance (the acknowledged weak point in this lens) comes into play more obviously, particularly at wider apertures.
While I will still keep the 17-35 for its perfect focal length spread for stuff like interior church shots during wedding ceremonies and 80% of the other commercial stuff I do, for the forestry landscape panos I do I am looking at prime 24 & 28 MF fast lenses instead for the camera bag. The edge performance of the 17-35 in the detail-rich forest areas I work in requires f/11 or f/16 which limits depth of field choices somewhat, and stitching shots taken at f/4 to f/8-11 becomes problematical due to the sharpness loss at the corners of overlapping frames.
I have fully 6 months until the next photographing season in the forest comes about to find the best candidates for primes, so I'm following these lens threads with interest.
Your observation of balance on the D3 is correct - the 17-35 & D3 were almost made for each other in that regard; still a bit front heavy but handles really well in actual use.