A few weeks ago, when I purchased the 40D, I ordered the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L Make II and the EF-S 15-55mm f/2.8, with the declared intention that I keep only one of them. The return option was for one week, so I tested them a week long against each other and against the Sigma 20mm f/1.8, the Tamron 28-75mm and the Canon 50mm f/1.4, always equal focal lengths and apertures, on the 40D.
After several hundred shots dedicated to the comparison and pixel-peeped the not demosaiced images, I concluded, that the EF 16-35mm is a tiny bit better than the 17-55mm in some situations only. The 17-55mm is an unbelievable lens, it gave a hard time even the 50mm f/1.4. So, I kept it.
Note: CA is as bad on both the 16-35mm and the 17-55mm as on the Sigma. Flaring too was the same between the two contenders.
Add the IS and the longer range to the virtues of the 17-55mm, and no question remains (and a small addition: the hood of the 17-55mm is designed for the cropping camera, it is more effective than the hood of the 16-35mm.)