houdel wrote:
I have the Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8. Some claim it to be second in quality to the 14-24mm f/2.8. Fairly small & light, filter capable, can be found used for under $1000.
Yup, I'm in the same Nikon camp- the 17-35 is my second workhorse when a 28-300 is out of the question. Don't use the 14-24 as much as I'd imagined (not sure why) but the 20mm 1.8 is very good when light is fading or just plain gone. As an off-beat suggestion- how's 'bout the Sigma 12-24 f5.6? It's a fun lens- serviceably sharp (in many areas), slow focusing and dorky... but it is fun and inexpensive. That 12mm on an FX sensor covers ALOT of acreage.