Andreas: That's the exact switch I made, and I've only 'regretted' it once--when shooting in Arches National Park in Utah in a snow/hail/rain/thunder/lightning storm. The weather sealed nature of the 17-40 would have been nice, and I wasn't sure that the Zeiss would take the weather so nicely.

Lovely place. The 17-35mm seems to be a nice alternative to my Canon 17-40mm. Have to further investigate on that.

Thanks, Stephen. As you can imagine, the resolving power of the 17-35 isn't accurately represented here. The more I look at this the more I want to rework it a bit: the DR doesn't seem quite right.

Nice! Stephen