From what I read it is an excellent lens, and various pro photographers actually prefer using this lens over the 24-70. It really depends whether you need the f2.8 aperture, if not, then its nice to have the extra 50mm on the tele end. The VR at least makes it possible to use it in lower light conditions as well. The distortion at 24mm can easily be corrected in lightroom anyways.
If you do landscape, seems like a great lens since you mostly shoot at f/8 anyways. Travel is great too, as an all rounder.
Forget what >>3676449
says, he's an idiot.
Firstly this lens is not wider than a regular 24-70, never mind that just taking a 'standard lens because its standard' is a dumb argument. He clearly never used this lens.
Also, this lens is a good 200gr lighter than most 24-70 2.8 competitors.
Anyways if you are looking for a travel lens, I'd also reccomend you look at the relatively new 35-150 f2.8-4 tamron, especially combined with the 17-35mm f2.8-4.
I currently own the 17-35 and am blown away, even thinking to sell my 24-70 2.8 to get the 35-150. Then you have the entire 17-150mm range in just two relatively lightweight lenses.