Nikon has the 16-35 f4 VR and 70-200 f4 VR. No excuses!
The 17-40L trumps the 16-35 VR in IQ at half the cost. The only Nikkor UWA with even minimally acceptable corners is the 14-24 -- which, while stellar in IQ, is far over my budget.
As for the 70-200 f/4 VR, at least its IQ is on par with my 70-200 f/4L for twice the cost. But I don't want VR if it means paying twice as much. And that's the point, in the case of both lenses: Nikon fails to offer non-VR versions for users on a budget. Stupid. The 17-40L and 70-200 f/4L are extremely popular and serve as "gateway drugs" for many Canon users, so why doesn't Nikon want a piece of that segment?
Hobbyists/amateurs looking to keep their full-frame kit under $3000-3500 are faced with either using decent glass on Canon and losing DR, or using inferior/third-party glass on Nikon to get that DR. It's rather unfortunate.