Nikon 12-24 or 17-35

[spnsprt]

So i have a d300 and after playing with my friend's wide angle on her canon i wanna go wide too. So since i'm rolling with a dx right now the 12-24 is made for it and cheaper but i don't plan on using dx forever (full frame one day...) so would it be worth waiting and just getting the legendary 17-35?

[cire]

Are you stuck on buying Nikkor only lens? I don't think 17 is quite wide enough on a crop sensor. I've read good reviews on that Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. That's a fast ultra-wide!

I know it's hard to plan ahead. I have a D300 also but would love to move up to FX one day. So, I keep going back and forth also. I really want a 17-55mm. But, once again DX.

[steevo8]

I would say the 12-24 would most likely serve you better. I know when I use my friends 17-40L on my canon 20d(lens is for full frame also I believe and the 20d isn't so same case here) almost everyone of my shots is at 17 and out of several hundred I think I have only gone out to 40 a couple times. To me I see that as I could easily go lower and have no use for going higher. As for not getting it cause you'll most likely go to a full frame later, I wouldn't worry about that much considering you'll most likely procrastinate on that and in the mean time miss a lot of shots. Plus spending less is always nice.

[spnsprt]

i actually ended up getting the 12-24 and want to eventually get the 17-35 because even for the d300 it's sharp as hell. and i figure when i eventually go up to fx in a bajillion years i can keep using it