For sharpness, the 14-24 f2.8 and newer 16-35 f4 is unmatched by the older 17-35 f2.8.
What I like about the 17-35 is the aperture ring, 17-35 focal range, ability to use filters.
What I don't like about it , the price.
I do not have this lens, read some reviews of it though. Availability of this lens brand new is getting harder, may have to get it used if I decide to buy it.
What I like about the 14-24, the 14mm width combined with a 10mm focal range, else I'd be buying the 14mm f2.8 prime, so far I haven't see any fisheye like effect that you mentioned in any of my shots. Of course being an ultra-ultra-wide angle lens, understanding how to use it is important. For landscapes it works well, for portraits I use this lens mostly when I want to get very close to my subject and use the expansion effect of wide angle lenses.
What I don't like, G lens and not being able to use filters.
I have this lens.
What I like about the 16-35, longer focal range, can use filters and price is cheapest of the 3 (around 1000 vs 1700+ for other 2), it has VR
What I don't like, being f4 and not 2.8 or wider, if Nikon can make a F2.8 version of this lens without VR it would be perfect for me.
I may get this lens or the 17-35 later.