DX wide lenses for D500 + D300S

[the solitaire]

3rd vote for the 17-35 f2,8.
I picked up the 14-24 f2,8 back when I was mainly shooting a D300 and found that even in DX 24mm is limiting. The 17-35 would have been a better choice, maybe complimented by a 10,5mm fish eye

[pluton]

Funny, when I had a D200, then a D2Xs, the results from my copy of the Nikon 17-35 frequently seemed to lack definition, but the Nikon 17-55 I later acquired had much better definition.
Later the 17-35 proved fine on the 12MP D3.  Same copy.  Probably operator error on my part.

[chris dees]

Nothing against the 17-35, but 17mm on DX is not wide enough for me.
It should start somewhere at 10-12mm

[Snetiger]

Which is better for DX 17-55 or 17-35/2.8? Supposed I don't need 35-55 but which of the lenses is sharper more well behaved?

[Jakov Minić]

I haven't used the 17-55 so cannot answer directly. However the 17-35 will give you FX possibility and I guess it beats the 17-55 in all departments because on DX sized sensors it uses only the central part of the image circle.

[Akira]

When I was using D40, I bought 17-55/2.8 new which turned out to be a defect sample (off-centered optics and AF incaccuracy),  Nikon couldn't fix it.  I returned it and never looked back.  That was the first of my several experiences with defect samples bought new.

[Snetiger]

I have owned 2 samples of the 17-55 which were very sharp to excellent on DX. But I never had a 17-35. Hence why I am curious to how it performs on 20-24 MP cameras.

[Roland Vink]

I've never used these lenses, but from reading, the 17-55 is very prone to flare, while the 17-35 is much better for shooting into the light. That could make a difference depending on the type of shooting you do. Someone please correct if I'm wrong here...

[sveintore]

Another vote for the Sigma 18-35 f1.8.
It's ridiculously sharp, build quality is superb, the feel great,and it's fun to use and play with dof/bokeh. Got mine used, now saving up for the 50-100mm.
A bit heavy and large, and it can miss on the focus now and then (not often). Focus is very silent.

Lots of positive reviews.
https://photographylife.com/reviews/sigma-18-35mm-f1-8

[pluton]

Nothing against the 17-35, but 17mm on DX is not wide enough for me.
It should start somewhere at 10-12mm

The kit to have, at the time when DX was Nikon's main offering, was the 12-24(18-35-e) and the 17-55(25.5-83-e).
I had both and was quite content...at the time.
A good copy of the 17-55 was "sharp" at all apertures and focal lengths, but did flare/ghost a bit more than the 17-35, and also has a peculiar field curvature at infinity @the wide end, which makes wide open landscape shots at 17mm a less than trouble-free undertaking.

[RonVol]

I really like the Nikkor 10-24mm.
While definitely not a pro lens; given its size & weight..............it's a great performer.
Here's a shot taken with it mounted to a D7000.
Image downsized from 10mb to 2.5mb for viewing here 

10mm
f/13
ISO-200
1/640s

[Jakov Minić]

Ron, I really like the boat and bay

[RonVol]

Ron, I really like the boat and bay

Thanks Jakov 
It's our 'new' run-about. We only get her a few weeks ago. She's a 1998 model with 40hp to push her along.
Perfect for what we want.
The bay is in the Kuringai National Park, near Sydney, Australia.

[Snetiger]

Another vote for the Sigma 18-35 f1.8.
It's ridiculously sharp, build quality is superb, the feel great,and it's fun to use and play with dof/bokeh. Got mine used, now saving up for the 50-100mm.
A bit heavy and large, and it can miss on the focus now and then (not often). Focus is very silent.

Lots of positive reviews.
https://photographylife.com/reviews/sigma-18-35mm-f1-8

Contemplating. It would be my first break up with the marriage to Nikkors. 

[Snetiger]

I really like the Nikkor 10-24mm.
While definitely not a pro lens; given its size & weight..............it's a great performer.
Here's a shot taken with it mounted to a D7000.
Image downsized from 10mb to 2.5mb for viewing here 

10mm
f/13
ISO-200
1/640s

Nice shot, Ron!!