pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

I'm with ya until you said buy the lens for the camera you have today(APC). The kick in the ass is, if you decide to move to full frame then the lens is boat anchor.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I use the Nikon 16-35 f4 and the Nikon 24-70 2.8. I use the 16-35 for landscapes on my D810, that focal length is great for me because I shoot foreground/background type shots. However, please keep in mind, that lens on your camera would have an effective focal length of about 25-52, you might be better off with a 10-20 mm DX lens on your d7200 for wide angle shots.
The 24-70 2.8 is great for my family shots, love the separation of background using 2.8 on that lens. Great for portraits because on your camera that lens would have an effective focal length of about 36-105 mm.
Again, if you want wide angle you would be best going with a 10-20. Nikon makes a new wide at a good price and gets good reviews. Check it out.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1341603-REG/nikon_20067_af_p_dx_nikkor_10_20mm.html

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

With wide angle lenses, there are fewer affordable FX choices which would work as well for a DX body. (Focal length, size/weight, price) One can always sell when/if you move to full frame.

mtcoothaman Loc: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Sigma makes a nice 10-20mm. I think the current one is f3.5 but there was a f4-5.6 as well which you may pick up on the used market. Both are good.

NCMtnMan Loc: N. Fork New River, Ashe Co., NC

If you really want the wide angle effect on a DX camera, then you need a wide angle DX lens like the Nikon P 10-20.

nikon123 Loc: Toronto, Canada

Good morning all. I purchased a Sigma wide angle lens many years ago. It is the 10-20mm 1.4 to 5.6 DC. I presently use it on my Nikon D500 camera. Its a great lens and produces very sharp images and with the crop camera the focal length becomes 15-30mm. There are many responses about the Tokina 11-16mm. I don't have any Tokina lenses and cannot comment about their quality but I do know my Sigma. Good luck in finding your wide angle lens.

denwin580 Loc: Kettering, Ohio

Tokina 11-16 and you need to never look back !!!

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

Just another pitch for the ultra wide. With your D7200 you need to get down to 10mm. I agree just having one when needed is indispensable. I shoot a FF DSLR and carry a 16-35 = to about 10-23 on your APS-C. I don't use it often but when I do there is usually no other alternatives. Here's hoping you find the right one. ;-)

leftj Loc: Texas

If you really want a wide angle you should probably consider something less than 17mm. Maybe a 10-22mm or a 10-18.

Boris Ekner Loc: From Sweden, living in Guatemala

Tokina 11-20mm f2.8 is considered one of the best, if not the best, on the market.

The previous version, 11-16mm, has a lensflare issue. Lensflare is when light is reflected between the glass elements within the lens. Lensflare is very difficult to deal with, eliminate, in post production.

You can find a used 11-20mm at eBay from ~$400.

Lenstip review of Tokina 11-20mm:
https://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=451

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

Yes sir, I use that same lens on my crop sensor Canon 80D and love mine as well!

wetreed

The Nikon 10-20 mentioned above is an excellent choice. I love mine and get excellent results with it. I always wanted a really wide lens and at the price point this sold for I was able to afford one. I knew what I was getting. Even though it has a lot of plastic it works really well. I bought mine from Nikon on sale and refurbished, it came to $242 plus tax. That’s about half of the Tonika, Sigma and Tamron. I think it’s the best wide angle value out there.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I agree with some previous responses.... 24mm isn't very wide on a DX camera. 17mm is better, but not a whole lot. Most consider 15mm the minimum for a "truly wide" lens on DX.

If you want f/2.8, the Tokina 11-20mm is the way to go. It superseded the old 11-16mm model and is much improved over that lens. The 11-16mm sharp, but prone to flare problems. It's also got a very narrow range of focal lengths. The 11-20mm goes a long way toward solving both those problems. The only down side, the 11-20mm is a fairly large and heavy lens... but that's the trade-off if you gotta have f/2.8.

Astrophotographers and photojournalists might need f/2.8 on an ultrawide... but for most purposes most people don't. Not having to have f/2.8 gives you a whole lot more options.

Tokina themselves also offer a 12-28mm f/4 that's a little smaller, lighter and slightly less expensive than the 11-20mm f/2.8.

The Nikkor AF-P 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6 DX VR is smaller, lighter, relatively inexpensive at around $300. It's more plasticky than most of the other, but capable.

The Nikkor AF-S 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 DX is ridiculously expensive. It's capable, but not "premium build" by any means and at almost $900 it's almost the most expensive lens of this type... double or triple the price of many others.

The Nikkor AF-S 12-24mm f/4 DX is even worse. At $1150 it is the most expensive lens of this type from any manufacturer... Almost quadruple the price of few, triple the price of some and more than double the price of most. Before you ask.... No, the very pricey Nikkor 10-24mm and 12-24mm aren't 4X, 3X or even 2X "better". In fact, in terms of image quality they're about equal with many of the much more affordable lenses. The Tokina are equal build quality and the Sigma are pretty close, too. (Not sure about the new Tamron, see below.)

Sigma currently makes three ultrawides. Their 8-16mm is the widest of the wide.... and fairly pricey with hefty wide angle distortions. They've dramatically lowered the price on their 10-20mm f/3.5, but that's another relatively large and heavy lens (it and the Tokina 11-20mm use 82mm filters, while most of the other ultrawides here use 77mm... the $300 Nikkor uses 72mm). They used to make a 10-20mm f/4-5.6 that's considerably smaller and lighter, and was a less expensive lens alongside the f/3.5 version. This Sigma is no longer made, but you might be able to find it used.Finally, Sigma's 12-24mm is actually an FX lens, which makes it fairly large and pricey... especially the current "Art" version. The Sigma 8-16mm and 12-24mm also have protruding, convex front lens elements that preclude using standard filters on them.

Tamron has a new 10-24mm with VC (stabilization) that's getting good reviews. It replaces an earlier model without VC that didn't impress me very much. I haven't had opportunity to compare the new one, but many users report liking it.

If you search for ultrawides, you'll also find some fisheye lenses (Tokina 10-17mm, for example). Be aware that these are "uncorrected" and strongly "bend" straight lines. IMO, they are rather specialized lenses... Fun for some things, but not as generally useful as the non-fisheye lenses listed above.

George Kravis

S'funny, no one has mentioned the Tamron 10 - 24 mm f3.5 - f4.5 wide angle zoom, which I purchased two years ago for my crop sensor Canon cameras and am pleased with its performance.

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

No brainer. Buy the Nikon 10-20 AF-P VR. Yes, it has VR which all or most of it's competitors lack. The VR largely makes up for its slower speed. The Tokina wide angles are far better built and maybe slightly sharper but more than double the weight. For a lens which you will most likely rarely use, weight is particularly important. Thinking about eventually going full frame? The Nikon 10-20 is entirely functional as a full frame ultra wide angle lens between 13 and 18mm! That is, no or insignificant vignetting. I had the Tokina 11-16 for a while but I bought the 10-20 as soon as it came out. I still use the Tokina, mostly for interiors. I'm going to China in a few months with the full frame D750 as my only camera. Taking the Nikon 10-20 DX for ultra wide angle. At 8 ounces I will hardly notice the extra weight.